<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_30_2044224</id>
	<title>Malcolm Gladwell Challenges the Idea of "Free"</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1246358760000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader brings us another bump on the <a href="//tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/24/1528204">bumpy road</a> of Chris Anderson's new book, <em>Free: The Future of a Radical Price</em>, which we discussed a week ago. Now the Times (UK) is <a href="http://timesonline.typepad.com/technology/2009/06/malcolm-gladwell-vs-chris-anderson-a-very-intellectual-bust-up.html">reporting on a dustup</a> between Anderson and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladwell">Malcolm Gladwell</a>, author of <em>The Tipping Point</em>, <em>Blink</em>, and <a href="//slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/04/1426234&amp;tid=146">Outliers</a>. Recently <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/07/06/090706crbo\_books\_gladwell?printable=true">Gladwell reviewed, or rather deconstructed, Anderson's book</a> in the New Yorker. <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/dear-malcolm-why-so-threatened/">Anderson has responded</a> with a blog post that addresses some, but by no means all, of Gladwell's criticisms, and The Times is inclined to award the match to Gladwell on points. Although their reviewer didn't notice that Gladwell, in setting up the idea of "Free" as a straw man, omitted a critical half of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information\_wants\_to\_be\_free">Stewart Brand's seminal quote</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader brings us another bump on the bumpy road of Chris Anderson 's new book , Free : The Future of a Radical Price , which we discussed a week ago .
Now the Times ( UK ) is reporting on a dustup between Anderson and Malcolm Gladwell , author of The Tipping Point , Blink , and Outliers .
Recently Gladwell reviewed , or rather deconstructed , Anderson 's book in the New Yorker .
Anderson has responded with a blog post that addresses some , but by no means all , of Gladwell 's criticisms , and The Times is inclined to award the match to Gladwell on points .
Although their reviewer did n't notice that Gladwell , in setting up the idea of " Free " as a straw man , omitted a critical half of Stewart Brand 's seminal quote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader brings us another bump on the bumpy road of Chris Anderson's new book, Free: The Future of a Radical Price, which we discussed a week ago.
Now the Times (UK) is reporting on a dustup between Anderson and Malcolm Gladwell, author of The Tipping Point, Blink, and Outliers.
Recently Gladwell reviewed, or rather deconstructed, Anderson's book in the New Yorker.
Anderson has responded with a blog post that addresses some, but by no means all, of Gladwell's criticisms, and The Times is inclined to award the match to Gladwell on points.
Although their reviewer didn't notice that Gladwell, in setting up the idea of "Free" as a straw man, omitted a critical half of Stewart Brand's seminal quote.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28539807</id>
	<title>Re:Extended Summary</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1246441920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's all so exciting! Wouldn't you agree?!</i></p><p>(squeaky high-school girl voice) Sure is! And have you heard, I hear that Theresa, you know, the one who had a crush on Jimmy, said that she saw how they made out in the cafeteria...</p><p>It sure feels like petty high school bickering over who is right on a matter nobody cares about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all so exciting !
Would n't you agree ? !
( squeaky high-school girl voice ) Sure is !
And have you heard , I hear that Theresa , you know , the one who had a crush on Jimmy , said that she saw how they made out in the cafeteria...It sure feels like petty high school bickering over who is right on a matter nobody cares about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all so exciting!
Wouldn't you agree?!
(squeaky high-school girl voice) Sure is!
And have you heard, I hear that Theresa, you know, the one who had a crush on Jimmy, said that she saw how they made out in the cafeteria...It sure feels like petty high school bickering over who is right on a matter nobody cares about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536243</id>
	<title>The biggest point, in my opinion</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1246364040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The biggest point, in my opinion, that Gladwell makes, is that you still need to find a way to make money.  Both sides use the example of youtube, which gives away everything for free.  However, they have infrastructure costs of somewhere around $300 million a year, which they haven't been able to cover with advertising.  Will they be able to find a way to cover their costs, or not?  I don't know the answer to that, maybe eventually.<br> <br>
I think Anderson is kind of stumbling upon a point an MBA told me once, that given enough time, all new technology becomes a commodity.  There are a dozen word processors you can choose from, a dozen different types computers, a dozen types of memory to choose from, hundreds of flash game sites (which are free, but 20 years ago people paid real money for games just like those).  So for the most part, things will get sold for a little more than the cost to create them (the MBA then went on to tell me a number of different techniques to 'lock in' customers to your product: trapping users with file format was one, there were many other more devious methods, and Microsoft uses many of them. I don't underestimate quality MBAs anymore).  <br> <br>
What Anderson is saying is that more and more, marketers will use freeness to suck users in.  This is actually common knowledge among marketers, they've been playing with 'free' for years, and they are really excited about it, and talk about it amongst themselves, and to anyone else who will listen.  Basically Anderson is right.<br> <br>
What Gladwell is saying is that you still need a way to cover your costs.  Basically he is right as well.<br> <br>
They are both right, and what's more, if you asked an MBA about this, they might wonder why you are arguing about such basic ideas.  And if you ask nicely, they'll tell you tons more about things you never even thought of.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest point , in my opinion , that Gladwell makes , is that you still need to find a way to make money .
Both sides use the example of youtube , which gives away everything for free .
However , they have infrastructure costs of somewhere around $ 300 million a year , which they have n't been able to cover with advertising .
Will they be able to find a way to cover their costs , or not ?
I do n't know the answer to that , maybe eventually .
I think Anderson is kind of stumbling upon a point an MBA told me once , that given enough time , all new technology becomes a commodity .
There are a dozen word processors you can choose from , a dozen different types computers , a dozen types of memory to choose from , hundreds of flash game sites ( which are free , but 20 years ago people paid real money for games just like those ) .
So for the most part , things will get sold for a little more than the cost to create them ( the MBA then went on to tell me a number of different techniques to 'lock in ' customers to your product : trapping users with file format was one , there were many other more devious methods , and Microsoft uses many of them .
I do n't underestimate quality MBAs anymore ) .
What Anderson is saying is that more and more , marketers will use freeness to suck users in .
This is actually common knowledge among marketers , they 've been playing with 'free ' for years , and they are really excited about it , and talk about it amongst themselves , and to anyone else who will listen .
Basically Anderson is right .
What Gladwell is saying is that you still need a way to cover your costs .
Basically he is right as well .
They are both right , and what 's more , if you asked an MBA about this , they might wonder why you are arguing about such basic ideas .
And if you ask nicely , they 'll tell you tons more about things you never even thought of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest point, in my opinion, that Gladwell makes, is that you still need to find a way to make money.
Both sides use the example of youtube, which gives away everything for free.
However, they have infrastructure costs of somewhere around $300 million a year, which they haven't been able to cover with advertising.
Will they be able to find a way to cover their costs, or not?
I don't know the answer to that, maybe eventually.
I think Anderson is kind of stumbling upon a point an MBA told me once, that given enough time, all new technology becomes a commodity.
There are a dozen word processors you can choose from, a dozen different types computers, a dozen types of memory to choose from, hundreds of flash game sites (which are free, but 20 years ago people paid real money for games just like those).
So for the most part, things will get sold for a little more than the cost to create them (the MBA then went on to tell me a number of different techniques to 'lock in' customers to your product: trapping users with file format was one, there were many other more devious methods, and Microsoft uses many of them.
I don't underestimate quality MBAs anymore).
What Anderson is saying is that more and more, marketers will use freeness to suck users in.
This is actually common knowledge among marketers, they've been playing with 'free' for years, and they are really excited about it, and talk about it amongst themselves, and to anyone else who will listen.
Basically Anderson is right.
What Gladwell is saying is that you still need a way to cover your costs.
Basically he is right as well.
They are both right, and what's more, if you asked an MBA about this, they might wonder why you are arguing about such basic ideas.
And if you ask nicely, they'll tell you tons more about things you never even thought of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537011</id>
	<title>Watched his keynote Sunday at NECC09...</title>
	<author>parliboy</author>
	<datestamp>1246368900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and it was basically a verbal blowjob for KIPP.  When he wasn't doing that, he was praising Japanese models while poo-pooing different levels of ability, while Japanese models are super differentiated to the point that you have to earn your way into high school.  Just a hodgepodge of inconsistencies that made his speech (pun intended) an outlier.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and it was basically a verbal blowjob for KIPP .
When he was n't doing that , he was praising Japanese models while poo-pooing different levels of ability , while Japanese models are super differentiated to the point that you have to earn your way into high school .
Just a hodgepodge of inconsistencies that made his speech ( pun intended ) an outlier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and it was basically a verbal blowjob for KIPP.
When he wasn't doing that, he was praising Japanese models while poo-pooing different levels of ability, while Japanese models are super differentiated to the point that you have to earn your way into high school.
Just a hodgepodge of inconsistencies that made his speech (pun intended) an outlier.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538851</id>
	<title>Don't buy Gladwell's assertions...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246386360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gladwin said Anderson "forgets the plants and the power lines". I think such positions are one-dimensional, shallow. They assume that costs, in this case power distribution, are static.</p><p>The very act of reducing the cost of the power generation by 20\% may iteratively reduce the costs of other business, wages, and of living itself, ultimately reducing the costs across the board. One example may be that, if fuel was cheap, or free, it may be cost effective and more imperative to reduce or eliminate the much higher distribution costs, maybe by installing smaller local reactors like the Toshiba. If the cost to heat your home dropped by 20\%, your distribution costs dropped, and your purchased goods were made with cheaper energy costs, you may take a certain percentage less in wages to live. Iterate many times across all business and society to reach equilibrium.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gladwin said Anderson " forgets the plants and the power lines " .
I think such positions are one-dimensional , shallow .
They assume that costs , in this case power distribution , are static.The very act of reducing the cost of the power generation by 20 \ % may iteratively reduce the costs of other business , wages , and of living itself , ultimately reducing the costs across the board .
One example may be that , if fuel was cheap , or free , it may be cost effective and more imperative to reduce or eliminate the much higher distribution costs , maybe by installing smaller local reactors like the Toshiba .
If the cost to heat your home dropped by 20 \ % , your distribution costs dropped , and your purchased goods were made with cheaper energy costs , you may take a certain percentage less in wages to live .
Iterate many times across all business and society to reach equilibrium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gladwin said Anderson "forgets the plants and the power lines".
I think such positions are one-dimensional, shallow.
They assume that costs, in this case power distribution, are static.The very act of reducing the cost of the power generation by 20\% may iteratively reduce the costs of other business, wages, and of living itself, ultimately reducing the costs across the board.
One example may be that, if fuel was cheap, or free, it may be cost effective and more imperative to reduce or eliminate the much higher distribution costs, maybe by installing smaller local reactors like the Toshiba.
If the cost to heat your home dropped by 20\%, your distribution costs dropped, and your purchased goods were made with cheaper energy costs, you may take a certain percentage less in wages to live.
Iterate many times across all business and society to reach equilibrium.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28543725</id>
	<title>Re:Not a book review</title>
	<author>anaesthetica</author>
	<datestamp>1246468020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/06/29/free-free" title="daringfireball.net">Anderson wrote to John Gruber</a> [daringfireball.net] to explain that <i>Free</i> is being given away for free in various formats:<blockquote><div><p>I may be a blowhard, but I'm not a hypocrite. "Free" will be free. Ebooks free for first week, web book (Google Books) free for first month, abridged audiobook free to all hardcover purchasers and unabridged audiobook (the whole thing) free to everyone forever. All starting on pub date (July 9th).<br> <br>BTW, I made those audiobooks free by reserving the rights to myself. I paid for the studio time (and recorded it myself), the abridging and the audio editing (more than $25,000, all told), so that the audiobook could be free to all.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anderson wrote to John Gruber [ daringfireball.net ] to explain that Free is being given away for free in various formats : I may be a blowhard , but I 'm not a hypocrite .
" Free " will be free .
Ebooks free for first week , web book ( Google Books ) free for first month , abridged audiobook free to all hardcover purchasers and unabridged audiobook ( the whole thing ) free to everyone forever .
All starting on pub date ( July 9th ) .
BTW , I made those audiobooks free by reserving the rights to myself .
I paid for the studio time ( and recorded it myself ) , the abridging and the audio editing ( more than $ 25,000 , all told ) , so that the audiobook could be free to all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anderson wrote to John Gruber [daringfireball.net] to explain that Free is being given away for free in various formats:I may be a blowhard, but I'm not a hypocrite.
"Free" will be free.
Ebooks free for first week, web book (Google Books) free for first month, abridged audiobook free to all hardcover purchasers and unabridged audiobook (the whole thing) free to everyone forever.
All starting on pub date (July 9th).
BTW, I made those audiobooks free by reserving the rights to myself.
I paid for the studio time (and recorded it myself), the abridging and the audio editing (more than $25,000, all told), so that the audiobook could be free to all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28541603</id>
	<title>Re:Extended Summary</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1246459680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two trolls fighting?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two trolls fighting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two trolls fighting?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28551865</id>
	<title>Re:Old news.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246452420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they do require that you disclose how you plan to make money in order to get investment capital.  you see, if you lie to someone to get their money, it's fraud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they do require that you disclose how you plan to make money in order to get investment capital .
you see , if you lie to someone to get their money , it 's fraud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they do require that you disclose how you plan to make money in order to get investment capital.
you see, if you lie to someone to get their money, it's fraud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538701</id>
	<title>I think Anderson gets it exactly backward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246384800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The lower the price of production gets, the more valuable IP gets. Consider cars for instance (this is Slashdot after all). The basics of building a car cost far less today than they did in 1950. Put another way, if you wanted to build a 1950-level car today, you could sell it for a lot less (in real dollars) than you could then. Manufacturing technology and management is just far more efficient now.</p><p>But do cars cost a lot less now than they did in 1950? No. The reason is that today's cars are far more complex and capable machines than cars were in the 1950s. A greater percentage of a car's value today is IP than it was in 1950.</p><p>Pharmaceuticals are an even better example. It is not that expensive to manufacture pharmaceuticals. What makes them expensive is their design, and the knowledge of how to use them safely. If you pick up any given pharmaceutical pill, a huge portion of its value is the IP is represents.</p><p>Finally consider the pure-IP products like software and music. The cost to reproduce a hit game or album is very, very low. But it is no easier to produce the ORIGINAL of a hit game or album now than it was decades ago. It's not like every band blows up like the Beatles today. If anything the cheaper reproduction has made it even harder to create truly stand-out IP that sells widely. In a world where every song is free, we still have only so much time to listen. Without price the only basis for competition is how good or catchy the song is itself--the pure IP. And the Pirate Bay does not help produce that.</p><p>A big failing of Anderson <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/04/the-inevitable-march-of-recorded-music-towards-free/" title="techcrunch.com">and others</a> [techcrunch.com] (he's certainly not the first to play the "free is inevitable" game), is a failure to take into account the role of law in markets. The law places limits within which the free market operates, including with respect to IP. If it is against the law to freely copy IP, with fines or jail at stake, there will be a deterrence to "free" and copies of IP will retain a price within the official, legal market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The lower the price of production gets , the more valuable IP gets .
Consider cars for instance ( this is Slashdot after all ) .
The basics of building a car cost far less today than they did in 1950 .
Put another way , if you wanted to build a 1950-level car today , you could sell it for a lot less ( in real dollars ) than you could then .
Manufacturing technology and management is just far more efficient now.But do cars cost a lot less now than they did in 1950 ?
No. The reason is that today 's cars are far more complex and capable machines than cars were in the 1950s .
A greater percentage of a car 's value today is IP than it was in 1950.Pharmaceuticals are an even better example .
It is not that expensive to manufacture pharmaceuticals .
What makes them expensive is their design , and the knowledge of how to use them safely .
If you pick up any given pharmaceutical pill , a huge portion of its value is the IP is represents.Finally consider the pure-IP products like software and music .
The cost to reproduce a hit game or album is very , very low .
But it is no easier to produce the ORIGINAL of a hit game or album now than it was decades ago .
It 's not like every band blows up like the Beatles today .
If anything the cheaper reproduction has made it even harder to create truly stand-out IP that sells widely .
In a world where every song is free , we still have only so much time to listen .
Without price the only basis for competition is how good or catchy the song is itself--the pure IP .
And the Pirate Bay does not help produce that.A big failing of Anderson and others [ techcrunch.com ] ( he 's certainly not the first to play the " free is inevitable " game ) , is a failure to take into account the role of law in markets .
The law places limits within which the free market operates , including with respect to IP .
If it is against the law to freely copy IP , with fines or jail at stake , there will be a deterrence to " free " and copies of IP will retain a price within the official , legal market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lower the price of production gets, the more valuable IP gets.
Consider cars for instance (this is Slashdot after all).
The basics of building a car cost far less today than they did in 1950.
Put another way, if you wanted to build a 1950-level car today, you could sell it for a lot less (in real dollars) than you could then.
Manufacturing technology and management is just far more efficient now.But do cars cost a lot less now than they did in 1950?
No. The reason is that today's cars are far more complex and capable machines than cars were in the 1950s.
A greater percentage of a car's value today is IP than it was in 1950.Pharmaceuticals are an even better example.
It is not that expensive to manufacture pharmaceuticals.
What makes them expensive is their design, and the knowledge of how to use them safely.
If you pick up any given pharmaceutical pill, a huge portion of its value is the IP is represents.Finally consider the pure-IP products like software and music.
The cost to reproduce a hit game or album is very, very low.
But it is no easier to produce the ORIGINAL of a hit game or album now than it was decades ago.
It's not like every band blows up like the Beatles today.
If anything the cheaper reproduction has made it even harder to create truly stand-out IP that sells widely.
In a world where every song is free, we still have only so much time to listen.
Without price the only basis for competition is how good or catchy the song is itself--the pure IP.
And the Pirate Bay does not help produce that.A big failing of Anderson and others [techcrunch.com] (he's certainly not the first to play the "free is inevitable" game), is a failure to take into account the role of law in markets.
The law places limits within which the free market operates, including with respect to IP.
If it is against the law to freely copy IP, with fines or jail at stake, there will be a deterrence to "free" and copies of IP will retain a price within the official, legal market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536279</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?!</title>
	<author>overcaffein8d</author>
	<datestamp>1246364160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or my mother's / sister's definition:</p><p>summary (also summery), adj.: of or relating to the summer, esp. with clothes, e.g. yellow cotton dresses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or my mother 's / sister 's definition : summary ( also summery ) , adj .
: of or relating to the summer , esp .
with clothes , e.g .
yellow cotton dresses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or my mother's / sister's definition:summary (also summery), adj.
: of or relating to the summer, esp.
with clothes, e.g.
yellow cotton dresses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28540301</id>
	<title>Re:Information doesn't want to be free...</title>
	<author>dzfoo</author>
	<datestamp>1246448640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just talked to her last night, and after the wild party on Saturday (and the few inebriated occurrences of which we shall not speak), I can say with some authority that Information most definitely wants to <i>just be left the fuck alone</i>.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -dZ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just talked to her last night , and after the wild party on Saturday ( and the few inebriated occurrences of which we shall not speak ) , I can say with some authority that Information most definitely wants to just be left the fuck alone .
          -dZ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just talked to her last night, and after the wild party on Saturday (and the few inebriated occurrences of which we shall not speak), I can say with some authority that Information most definitely wants to just be left the fuck alone.
          -dZ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28545093</id>
	<title>Re:YouTube does not have to make money</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1246472040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>which means they will get more money from their ads.</p></div><p>Which basically means YouTube will make money for Google.
</p><p>I'm not really saying you're wrong.  YouTube doesn't need to be directly profitable, but Google has to have a business model where running Youtube is worth the money they put into it.  Somehow it needs to work out that way, or else Google won't keep doing it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>which means they will get more money from their ads.Which basically means YouTube will make money for Google .
I 'm not really saying you 're wrong .
YouTube does n't need to be directly profitable , but Google has to have a business model where running Youtube is worth the money they put into it .
Somehow it needs to work out that way , or else Google wo n't keep doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>which means they will get more money from their ads.Which basically means YouTube will make money for Google.
I'm not really saying you're wrong.
YouTube doesn't need to be directly profitable, but Google has to have a business model where running Youtube is worth the money they put into it.
Somehow it needs to work out that way, or else Google won't keep doing it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538883</id>
	<title>Re:Extended Summary</title>
	<author>abigor</author>
	<datestamp>1246386780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You mean those fancy clubs that would never allow Cretans like us to bask in the glowing light of their intellectual presence?</p></div><p>Hahaha, this is one of the stupidest/funniest things I have ever read. Weird how both authors are biased against the good people of Crete.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean those fancy clubs that would never allow Cretans like us to bask in the glowing light of their intellectual presence ? Hahaha , this is one of the stupidest/funniest things I have ever read .
Weird how both authors are biased against the good people of Crete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean those fancy clubs that would never allow Cretans like us to bask in the glowing light of their intellectual presence?Hahaha, this is one of the stupidest/funniest things I have ever read.
Weird how both authors are biased against the good people of Crete.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538457</id>
	<title>Re:Extended Summary</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1246381560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the social clubs are just brimming with gossip about the scandal.</p></div><p>You mean those fancy clubs that would never allow Cretans like us to bask in the glowing light of their intellectual presence? Somehow, I cannot say that I am sorry to have missed this one. Perhaps this Gladwell fellow can turn his attentions next to Perez Hilton? If ever there was someone who needed to be taken down a notch or two it is him.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the social clubs are just brimming with gossip about the scandal.You mean those fancy clubs that would never allow Cretans like us to bask in the glowing light of their intellectual presence ?
Somehow , I can not say that I am sorry to have missed this one .
Perhaps this Gladwell fellow can turn his attentions next to Perez Hilton ?
If ever there was someone who needed to be taken down a notch or two it is him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the social clubs are just brimming with gossip about the scandal.You mean those fancy clubs that would never allow Cretans like us to bask in the glowing light of their intellectual presence?
Somehow, I cannot say that I am sorry to have missed this one.
Perhaps this Gladwell fellow can turn his attentions next to Perez Hilton?
If ever there was someone who needed to be taken down a notch or two it is him.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28540235</id>
	<title>Re:Hack vs. the Void</title>
	<author>cliffski</author>
	<datestamp>1246447740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I and millions of others who have bought all his books find him an entertaining and informative writer.<br>You don't sell millions and millions of books by not being able to write. Especially if you have no celebrity background and are known purely as a writer.<br>It sounds like he doesn't write to your tastes. JK Rowling doesn't write to mine, but I know she is an excellent author. It's not mass random stupidity that makes people buy these books, their tastes are just not the same as yours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I and millions of others who have bought all his books find him an entertaining and informative writer.You do n't sell millions and millions of books by not being able to write .
Especially if you have no celebrity background and are known purely as a writer.It sounds like he does n't write to your tastes .
JK Rowling does n't write to mine , but I know she is an excellent author .
It 's not mass random stupidity that makes people buy these books , their tastes are just not the same as yours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I and millions of others who have bought all his books find him an entertaining and informative writer.You don't sell millions and millions of books by not being able to write.
Especially if you have no celebrity background and are known purely as a writer.It sounds like he doesn't write to your tastes.
JK Rowling doesn't write to mine, but I know she is an excellent author.
It's not mass random stupidity that makes people buy these books, their tastes are just not the same as yours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536971</id>
	<title>Not a book review</title>
	<author>lyinhart</author>
	<datestamp>1246368480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, this is not a book review. And yes, in his books Gladwell does state the "obvious" and isn't always on point with his assertions. But in this critique of Anderson's ideas, Gladwell makes his point with one phrase:

<i>Free: The Future of a Radical Price</i> (Hyperion; <b>$26.99</b>)

Yes, for all of Anderson's extolling of the virtues of free content, he's still selling his book for money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , this is not a book review .
And yes , in his books Gladwell does state the " obvious " and is n't always on point with his assertions .
But in this critique of Anderson 's ideas , Gladwell makes his point with one phrase : Free : The Future of a Radical Price ( Hyperion ; $ 26.99 ) Yes , for all of Anderson 's extolling of the virtues of free content , he 's still selling his book for money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, this is not a book review.
And yes, in his books Gladwell does state the "obvious" and isn't always on point with his assertions.
But in this critique of Anderson's ideas, Gladwell makes his point with one phrase:

Free: The Future of a Radical Price (Hyperion; $26.99)

Yes, for all of Anderson's extolling of the virtues of free content, he's still selling his book for money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536067</id>
	<title>I wrote a song:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246363080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chinese people suck<br>Chinese people suck<br>Ching chang ching chang chiiiiing chong!<br>Ching chang ching chang chiiiiing chong!<br>Chinese people suuuuuuck.</p><p>Chinese people suck<br>Chinese people suck<br>Ching chang ching chang chiiiiing chong!<br>Ching chang ching chang chiiiiing chong!<br>Chinese people suuuuuuck.</p><p>less whitespace; less repetition. woo wei, wing wang wing wong, ching chang chong!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chinese people suckChinese people suckChing chang ching chang chiiiiing chong ! Ching chang ching chang chiiiiing chong ! Chinese people suuuuuuck.Chinese people suckChinese people suckChing chang ching chang chiiiiing chong ! Ching chang ching chang chiiiiing chong ! Chinese people suuuuuuck.less whitespace ; less repetition .
woo wei , wing wang wing wong , ching chang chong !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chinese people suckChinese people suckChing chang ching chang chiiiiing chong!Ching chang ching chang chiiiiing chong!Chinese people suuuuuuck.Chinese people suckChinese people suckChing chang ching chang chiiiiing chong!Ching chang ching chang chiiiiing chong!Chinese people suuuuuuck.less whitespace; less repetition.
woo wei, wing wang wing wong, ching chang chong!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28539533</id>
	<title>Re:Hack vs. the Void</title>
	<author>Martian\_Kyo</author>
	<datestamp>1246481520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't <b>admire</b> gladwell, but tipping point was an interesting read. Not brilliant, but it felt like an interesting conversation with a friend who had one of those crazy but interesting ideas. It made interesting observations, but made a conclusions I didn't entirely agree with. However it made me think and look up things, people and ideas.</p><p>What bothers me about your post is that it says nothing. You have two paragraphs of cynicism, with typical array of cynical adjective: 'Mensa bottom feeder', 'Hack', 'Soft journalism'.... You know,  being cynical doesn't make you wise.</p><p>I haven't read Anderson. However I don't understand people's problem with someone having an idea. Gladwell has ideas, he tries to put them together. Are they a bit dan brownish at times, yes. He is however doing something constructive and entertaining to read. And inspiring. He inspires people to write even if to prove him wrong. Progress in science and progress in general depends on going down the wrong paths as much as on going down the right ones. Gladwell helps the whole process of progress even if it's by writing things that turn out to be wrong.</p><p>Cynical people on other hand don't do much just stand on the sidelines screaming "You're stupid!". They offer no alternate answer or make effort to do anything, but glorify their passivity as wisdom.</p><p>In general I am bothered by people's binary opinions. Someone's either a genius or hack, without anything in between. In some people's minds apparently one wrong opinion makes all your other opinions and achievement worthless. I bet someone will find a grammatical error or typo in this post and use that as an argument that everything I <i>sad</i> is wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't admire gladwell , but tipping point was an interesting read .
Not brilliant , but it felt like an interesting conversation with a friend who had one of those crazy but interesting ideas .
It made interesting observations , but made a conclusions I did n't entirely agree with .
However it made me think and look up things , people and ideas.What bothers me about your post is that it says nothing .
You have two paragraphs of cynicism , with typical array of cynical adjective : 'Mensa bottom feeder ' , 'Hack ' , 'Soft journalism'.... You know , being cynical does n't make you wise.I have n't read Anderson .
However I do n't understand people 's problem with someone having an idea .
Gladwell has ideas , he tries to put them together .
Are they a bit dan brownish at times , yes .
He is however doing something constructive and entertaining to read .
And inspiring .
He inspires people to write even if to prove him wrong .
Progress in science and progress in general depends on going down the wrong paths as much as on going down the right ones .
Gladwell helps the whole process of progress even if it 's by writing things that turn out to be wrong.Cynical people on other hand do n't do much just stand on the sidelines screaming " You 're stupid ! " .
They offer no alternate answer or make effort to do anything , but glorify their passivity as wisdom.In general I am bothered by people 's binary opinions .
Someone 's either a genius or hack , without anything in between .
In some people 's minds apparently one wrong opinion makes all your other opinions and achievement worthless .
I bet someone will find a grammatical error or typo in this post and use that as an argument that everything I sad is wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't admire gladwell, but tipping point was an interesting read.
Not brilliant, but it felt like an interesting conversation with a friend who had one of those crazy but interesting ideas.
It made interesting observations, but made a conclusions I didn't entirely agree with.
However it made me think and look up things, people and ideas.What bothers me about your post is that it says nothing.
You have two paragraphs of cynicism, with typical array of cynical adjective: 'Mensa bottom feeder', 'Hack', 'Soft journalism'.... You know,  being cynical doesn't make you wise.I haven't read Anderson.
However I don't understand people's problem with someone having an idea.
Gladwell has ideas, he tries to put them together.
Are they a bit dan brownish at times, yes.
He is however doing something constructive and entertaining to read.
And inspiring.
He inspires people to write even if to prove him wrong.
Progress in science and progress in general depends on going down the wrong paths as much as on going down the right ones.
Gladwell helps the whole process of progress even if it's by writing things that turn out to be wrong.Cynical people on other hand don't do much just stand on the sidelines screaming "You're stupid!".
They offer no alternate answer or make effort to do anything, but glorify their passivity as wisdom.In general I am bothered by people's binary opinions.
Someone's either a genius or hack, without anything in between.
In some people's minds apparently one wrong opinion makes all your other opinions and achievement worthless.
I bet someone will find a grammatical error or typo in this post and use that as an argument that everything I sad is wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28543375</id>
	<title>Re:The biggest point, in my opinion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246467120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> I think people keep mistaking "free" for "Freedom". "free" quite literally means no price. "Freedom" means having the latitude to do certain things you want to do.</p></div></blockquote><p>No they don't.  Maybe that's because they know the difference between an adjective and a noun?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think people keep mistaking " free " for " Freedom " .
" free " quite literally means no price .
" Freedom " means having the latitude to do certain things you want to do.No they do n't .
Maybe that 's because they know the difference between an adjective and a noun ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I think people keep mistaking "free" for "Freedom".
"free" quite literally means no price.
"Freedom" means having the latitude to do certain things you want to do.No they don't.
Maybe that's because they know the difference between an adjective and a noun?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535985</id>
	<title>1 headline + 1 paragraph = nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246362780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could anyone understand that mess? Is this a book review? If I didn't know that "outliers" was a book, I'd be clicking past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could anyone understand that mess ?
Is this a book review ?
If I did n't know that " outliers " was a book , I 'd be clicking past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could anyone understand that mess?
Is this a book review?
If I didn't know that "outliers" was a book, I'd be clicking past.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537947</id>
	<title>Re:Extended Summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246376400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's all so exciting! Wouldn't you agree?!</p></div><p>No.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all so exciting !
Would n't you agree ?
! No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all so exciting!
Wouldn't you agree?
!No.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536339</id>
	<title>What is your problem?</title>
	<author>EWAdams</author>
	<datestamp>1246364460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The item is reporting a Times article, along with some related links. The issue is a familiar one and the language perfectly grammatical. What's the problem?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The item is reporting a Times article , along with some related links .
The issue is a familiar one and the language perfectly grammatical .
What 's the problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The item is reporting a Times article, along with some related links.
The issue is a familiar one and the language perfectly grammatical.
What's the problem?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538185</id>
	<title>Re:Information doesn't want to be free...</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1246378740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only something non-human can be anthropomorphized, therefore the desire to be be anthropomorphized is a desire to be non-human. <i>Weird.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only something non-human can be anthropomorphized , therefore the desire to be be anthropomorphized is a desire to be non-human .
Weird .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only something non-human can be anthropomorphized, therefore the desire to be be anthropomorphized is a desire to be non-human.
Weird.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538357</id>
	<title>Uh...what?</title>
	<author>hackel</author>
	<datestamp>1246380360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's amazing to me how the description of this article in no way describes what it is actually about!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's amazing to me how the description of this article in no way describes what it is actually about !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's amazing to me how the description of this article in no way describes what it is actually about!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538161</id>
	<title>Re:1 headline + 1 paragraph = nonsense</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1246378500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's about journalists, so they naturally assume that you know what they're talking about.  They live in a tiny, insular world...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about journalists , so they naturally assume that you know what they 're talking about .
They live in a tiny , insular world.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about journalists, so they naturally assume that you know what they're talking about.
They live in a tiny, insular world...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537425</id>
	<title>Gladwell vs. Anderson?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246372200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man, it's not exactly clash of the intellectual titans, is it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , it 's not exactly clash of the intellectual titans , is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, it's not exactly clash of the intellectual titans, is it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537723</id>
	<title>Mod parent up</title>
	<author>DriedClexler</author>
	<datestamp>1246374360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well put.  Would have used my mod points, but I had already comments on how painful it is to read Gladwell, especially knowing people take him seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well put .
Would have used my mod points , but I had already comments on how painful it is to read Gladwell , especially knowing people take him seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well put.
Would have used my mod points, but I had already comments on how painful it is to read Gladwell, especially knowing people take him seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537075</id>
	<title>Re:The biggest point, in my opinion</title>
	<author>Black Sabbath</author>
	<datestamp>1246369680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think people keep mistaking "free" for "Freedom". "free" quite literally means no price. "Freedom" means having the latitude to do certain things you want to do.<br><br>If I understand the nature of something that I accept for "free" then I have consciously made a decision to spend whatever personal effort is required to extract some value out of this "free" thing. Does my effort make the thing less "free"? Presumably, I know what I'm doing and still think its worth the price of my personal effort. This decision could be made for numerous reasons:<br>- I'm ignorant and naively think that "free" means no personal effort is required<br>- weighing the "personal effort" cost vs the cost of the non-free alternative<br>- weighing the "personal effort" cost vs future/indirect/other returns<br>- personal satisfaction/growth/principles/other emotional driver<br>Setting aside any possible naivete, the other reasons in my personal equation imply that despite a personal cost I still think "free" is worth it. This is irrespective of which side of the "free" offer I am on (provider/recipient).<br><br>"Freedom" is similar to "free" in that most people accept that there is an embedded cost somewhere that they are prepared to pay e.g. my freedom to flail my fists ends at the tip of your nose. My freedom to spout on about freedom is codependent on your freedom to spout on about subjects I may find personally abhorrent. Even with those "costs", I still think "Freedom" is worth it.<br><br>Your MBA friend is spot on - these are basic ideas. And the Times should be castigated for referring to these guys as "two of the world's leading thinkers".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think people keep mistaking " free " for " Freedom " .
" free " quite literally means no price .
" Freedom " means having the latitude to do certain things you want to do.If I understand the nature of something that I accept for " free " then I have consciously made a decision to spend whatever personal effort is required to extract some value out of this " free " thing .
Does my effort make the thing less " free " ?
Presumably , I know what I 'm doing and still think its worth the price of my personal effort .
This decision could be made for numerous reasons : - I 'm ignorant and naively think that " free " means no personal effort is required- weighing the " personal effort " cost vs the cost of the non-free alternative- weighing the " personal effort " cost vs future/indirect/other returns- personal satisfaction/growth/principles/other emotional driverSetting aside any possible naivete , the other reasons in my personal equation imply that despite a personal cost I still think " free " is worth it .
This is irrespective of which side of the " free " offer I am on ( provider/recipient ) .
" Freedom " is similar to " free " in that most people accept that there is an embedded cost somewhere that they are prepared to pay e.g .
my freedom to flail my fists ends at the tip of your nose .
My freedom to spout on about freedom is codependent on your freedom to spout on about subjects I may find personally abhorrent .
Even with those " costs " , I still think " Freedom " is worth it.Your MBA friend is spot on - these are basic ideas .
And the Times should be castigated for referring to these guys as " two of the world 's leading thinkers " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think people keep mistaking "free" for "Freedom".
"free" quite literally means no price.
"Freedom" means having the latitude to do certain things you want to do.If I understand the nature of something that I accept for "free" then I have consciously made a decision to spend whatever personal effort is required to extract some value out of this "free" thing.
Does my effort make the thing less "free"?
Presumably, I know what I'm doing and still think its worth the price of my personal effort.
This decision could be made for numerous reasons:- I'm ignorant and naively think that "free" means no personal effort is required- weighing the "personal effort" cost vs the cost of the non-free alternative- weighing the "personal effort" cost vs future/indirect/other returns- personal satisfaction/growth/principles/other emotional driverSetting aside any possible naivete, the other reasons in my personal equation imply that despite a personal cost I still think "free" is worth it.
This is irrespective of which side of the "free" offer I am on (provider/recipient).
"Freedom" is similar to "free" in that most people accept that there is an embedded cost somewhere that they are prepared to pay e.g.
my freedom to flail my fists ends at the tip of your nose.
My freedom to spout on about freedom is codependent on your freedom to spout on about subjects I may find personally abhorrent.
Even with those "costs", I still think "Freedom" is worth it.Your MBA friend is spot on - these are basic ideas.
And the Times should be castigated for referring to these guys as "two of the world's leading thinkers".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28546111</id>
	<title>Re:The biggest point, in my opinion</title>
	<author>Urban Garlic</author>
	<datestamp>1246475040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I think Anderson is kind of stumbling upon a point an MBA told me once, that given enough time, all new technology becomes a commodity.</p><p>There's a pithy quote along these lines, for which I can't find an attribution, but which I swear I did not make up, which paraphrases Arthur C. Clarke:</p><p>"Any sufficiently commercial communications technology is indistinguishable from television."</p><p>And the corollary, for those seeking to make money on the intertubes: "Any communications technology distinguishable from television is insufficiently commercial."</p><p>Not saying it's true, just tossing it in there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I think Anderson is kind of stumbling upon a point an MBA told me once , that given enough time , all new technology becomes a commodity.There 's a pithy quote along these lines , for which I ca n't find an attribution , but which I swear I did not make up , which paraphrases Arthur C. Clarke : " Any sufficiently commercial communications technology is indistinguishable from television .
" And the corollary , for those seeking to make money on the intertubes : " Any communications technology distinguishable from television is insufficiently commercial .
" Not saying it 's true , just tossing it in there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I think Anderson is kind of stumbling upon a point an MBA told me once, that given enough time, all new technology becomes a commodity.There's a pithy quote along these lines, for which I can't find an attribution, but which I swear I did not make up, which paraphrases Arthur C. Clarke:"Any sufficiently commercial communications technology is indistinguishable from television.
"And the corollary, for those seeking to make money on the intertubes: "Any communications technology distinguishable from television is insufficiently commercial.
"Not saying it's true, just tossing it in there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28539531</id>
	<title>Re:Extended Summary</title>
	<author>dargaud</author>
	<datestamp>1246481460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank you for the excellent summary, sir. Now would you mind to also comment on all the other kdawson posts that don't make any sense, if you have a couple months at your disposal ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for the excellent summary , sir .
Now would you mind to also comment on all the other kdawson posts that do n't make any sense , if you have a couple months at your disposal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for the excellent summary, sir.
Now would you mind to also comment on all the other kdawson posts that don't make any sense, if you have a couple months at your disposal ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536565</id>
	<title>Matthew Yglesias' take</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246365720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Political analyst Matthew Yglesias over at CAP has a <a href="http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/06/competition-profit-rates-and-freeness.php" title="thinkprogress.org">fairly good take on both the book and the review</a> [thinkprogress.org] at the CAP web site.</p><p>sPh</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Political analyst Matthew Yglesias over at CAP has a fairly good take on both the book and the review [ thinkprogress.org ] at the CAP web site.sPh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Political analyst Matthew Yglesias over at CAP has a fairly good take on both the book and the review [thinkprogress.org] at the CAP web site.sPh</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536131</id>
	<title>Information doesn't want to be free...</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1246363500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>...it just wants to be anthropomorphized.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...it just wants to be anthropomorphized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...it just wants to be anthropomorphized.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538259</id>
	<title>MOD PARENT UP.</title>
	<author>kklein</author>
	<datestamp>1246379280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A well-crafted post, sir!</htmltext>
<tokenext>A well-crafted post , sir !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A well-crafted post, sir!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28547705</id>
	<title>Re:Extended Summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246480260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Protip: For extra fun, read this post aloud in your best "Stewie from Family Guy" voice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Protip : For extra fun , read this post aloud in your best " Stewie from Family Guy " voice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Protip: For extra fun, read this post aloud in your best "Stewie from Family Guy" voice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537385</id>
	<title>Chris Anderson is not a hypocrit</title>
	<author>nausea\_malvarma</author>
	<datestamp>1246371960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gladwell just doesn't get it. Chris Anderson IS finding ways to make money off of giving things for free.</p><p>No really, he took something free (wikipedia) and charged money for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gladwell just does n't get it .
Chris Anderson IS finding ways to make money off of giving things for free.No really , he took something free ( wikipedia ) and charged money for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gladwell just doesn't get it.
Chris Anderson IS finding ways to make money off of giving things for free.No really, he took something free (wikipedia) and charged money for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535973</id>
	<title>Summary?!</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1246362720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Summary, n.: a comprehensive and usually brief abstract, recapitulation, or compendium of previously stated facts or statements.</p><p>That is exactly what this slashdot post isn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Summary , n. : a comprehensive and usually brief abstract , recapitulation , or compendium of previously stated facts or statements.That is exactly what this slashdot post is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Summary, n.: a comprehensive and usually brief abstract, recapitulation, or compendium of previously stated facts or statements.That is exactly what this slashdot post isn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536613</id>
	<title>Re:The biggest point, in my opinion</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1246366020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are right, but I'm not sure how it relates to the topic at hand, since I didn't see anywhere that Anderson said he was waiting for the price of hardware to drop to zero.  Did you see that anywhere?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are right , but I 'm not sure how it relates to the topic at hand , since I did n't see anywhere that Anderson said he was waiting for the price of hardware to drop to zero .
Did you see that anywhere ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are right, but I'm not sure how it relates to the topic at hand, since I didn't see anywhere that Anderson said he was waiting for the price of hardware to drop to zero.
Did you see that anywhere?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536425</id>
	<title>Re:The biggest point, in my opinion</title>
	<author>serbanp</author>
	<datestamp>1246365000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, but Anderson is dead wrong if he's waiting for the hardware price to drop to ZERO (i.e. free). Despite the spectacular price drop for all things hardware, they still have to be sold at a profit, otherwise no one would make them. They'll never get truly free, no matter how little you pay for them.
<p>.
</p><p>

Gladwell's writing abilities keep improving, his latest book being way better written than The Tipping Point. Who the heck is this Anderson guy and why can't he write in meaningful sentences?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , but Anderson is dead wrong if he 's waiting for the hardware price to drop to ZERO ( i.e .
free ) . Despite the spectacular price drop for all things hardware , they still have to be sold at a profit , otherwise no one would make them .
They 'll never get truly free , no matter how little you pay for them .
. Gladwell 's writing abilities keep improving , his latest book being way better written than The Tipping Point .
Who the heck is this Anderson guy and why ca n't he write in meaningful sentences ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, but Anderson is dead wrong if he's waiting for the hardware price to drop to ZERO (i.e.
free). Despite the spectacular price drop for all things hardware, they still have to be sold at a profit, otherwise no one would make them.
They'll never get truly free, no matter how little you pay for them.
.


Gladwell's writing abilities keep improving, his latest book being way better written than The Tipping Point.
Who the heck is this Anderson guy and why can't he write in meaningful sentences?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28540201</id>
	<title>Re:The biggest point, in my opinion</title>
	<author>cliffski</author>
	<datestamp>1246447380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is very true. Check out the web game 'civony' (now evony) it is advertised absolutely everywhere nd by all accounts has a huge numebr of people playing. the game is</p><p>FREE FOREVER!</p><p>Unless you actually want to 'get anywhere' in which case you need to pay to get this item, or pay for that ability, or pay for this feature, or pay for that feature...<br>By the time you are done you might as well just have bought CIV IV or have signed up to play World of Warcraft.</p><p>People are suckered in by 'free', but it never works. It's like that 'free financial advice' everyone got in the 80s. 'Free' because it was based on commission to financial services companies to push their products regardless of suitability.</p><p>You get what you pay for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is very true .
Check out the web game 'civony ' ( now evony ) it is advertised absolutely everywhere nd by all accounts has a huge numebr of people playing .
the game isFREE FOREVER ! Unless you actually want to 'get anywhere ' in which case you need to pay to get this item , or pay for that ability , or pay for this feature , or pay for that feature...By the time you are done you might as well just have bought CIV IV or have signed up to play World of Warcraft.People are suckered in by 'free ' , but it never works .
It 's like that 'free financial advice ' everyone got in the 80s .
'Free ' because it was based on commission to financial services companies to push their products regardless of suitability.You get what you pay for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is very true.
Check out the web game 'civony' (now evony) it is advertised absolutely everywhere nd by all accounts has a huge numebr of people playing.
the game isFREE FOREVER!Unless you actually want to 'get anywhere' in which case you need to pay to get this item, or pay for that ability, or pay for this feature, or pay for that feature...By the time you are done you might as well just have bought CIV IV or have signed up to play World of Warcraft.People are suckered in by 'free', but it never works.
It's like that 'free financial advice' everyone got in the 80s.
'Free' because it was based on commission to financial services companies to push their products regardless of suitability.You get what you pay for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537479</id>
	<title>Is the real story ego?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246372500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My take is that Gladwell is post-peak and he knows it.</p><p>IIRC his last book got kind of panned, and I don't know if the one before that was super well received, either, and the last thing he wants is someone else with "big, revolutionary &amp; daring ideas" shoving him out of the spotlight.</p><p>I mean, if that happens, he's just another loudmouth with an iPhone and a bunch of opinions.</p><p>Gladwell's "big" ideas and how-smart-am-I delivery I think will be non-starters in a world of 15\% unemployment.  They may keep going over big among the faux intelligentsia still capable of affording $6 lattes and Kindles, but won't mean shit to those of us sharecropping the back yard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My take is that Gladwell is post-peak and he knows it.IIRC his last book got kind of panned , and I do n't know if the one before that was super well received , either , and the last thing he wants is someone else with " big , revolutionary &amp; daring ideas " shoving him out of the spotlight.I mean , if that happens , he 's just another loudmouth with an iPhone and a bunch of opinions.Gladwell 's " big " ideas and how-smart-am-I delivery I think will be non-starters in a world of 15 \ % unemployment .
They may keep going over big among the faux intelligentsia still capable of affording $ 6 lattes and Kindles , but wo n't mean shit to those of us sharecropping the back yard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My take is that Gladwell is post-peak and he knows it.IIRC his last book got kind of panned, and I don't know if the one before that was super well received, either, and the last thing he wants is someone else with "big, revolutionary &amp; daring ideas" shoving him out of the spotlight.I mean, if that happens, he's just another loudmouth with an iPhone and a bunch of opinions.Gladwell's "big" ideas and how-smart-am-I delivery I think will be non-starters in a world of 15\% unemployment.
They may keep going over big among the faux intelligentsia still capable of affording $6 lattes and Kindles, but won't mean shit to those of us sharecropping the back yard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536201</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246363860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>kdawson challenges the idea of "Summaries"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>kdawson challenges the idea of " Summaries "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kdawson challenges the idea of "Summaries"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538113</id>
	<title>"Free" is an approximation.</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1246378020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not strictly true to talk about the kinds of economic models Anderson is talking about (if I understand this correctly) as "free".   They just involve transactions on the consumer end that are too small to bother collecting money for -- from the consumer.  That's not anything particularly revolutionary. Television ran for years that way with advertising revenues.</p><p>But if you look at television news, you see the Achilles heel of these models when it comes to journalism.  The three national networks for many years had news shows which were produced to serious journalistic standards.  But local news was a practically a by-word for cheap sensationalism. "If it bleeds it leads".  It's not that it is impossible to have high quality local news, newspapers did it for years.  It just wasn't economical to put the effort in for local markets unless the consumer ponied up dough.</p><p>The secret of "free" information is that those tiny increments of consumer value -- usually eyeball time on an advertisement, but it could possibly be other thigns -- can be aggregated on an enormous scale into packages that are valuable enough to pay for things like journalism.  Under Internet models, local news gathered to journalistic standards is not economical.</p><p>Now various crowd source models such as twitter have their place in the information ecosystem. They may beat journalism to the punch in many instances, or correct mistakes journalists make.  But we need journalists to correct the mistakes the crowd makes even more.  You can't use a model like Wikipedia as proof that quality journalism is possible with volunteers.  Journalism is much more difficult than holding forth on a topic you might know a little (or a lot) about. Suggesting that something like Wikipedia can replace journalism is like suggesting it can replace science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not strictly true to talk about the kinds of economic models Anderson is talking about ( if I understand this correctly ) as " free " .
They just involve transactions on the consumer end that are too small to bother collecting money for -- from the consumer .
That 's not anything particularly revolutionary .
Television ran for years that way with advertising revenues.But if you look at television news , you see the Achilles heel of these models when it comes to journalism .
The three national networks for many years had news shows which were produced to serious journalistic standards .
But local news was a practically a by-word for cheap sensationalism .
" If it bleeds it leads " .
It 's not that it is impossible to have high quality local news , newspapers did it for years .
It just was n't economical to put the effort in for local markets unless the consumer ponied up dough.The secret of " free " information is that those tiny increments of consumer value -- usually eyeball time on an advertisement , but it could possibly be other thigns -- can be aggregated on an enormous scale into packages that are valuable enough to pay for things like journalism .
Under Internet models , local news gathered to journalistic standards is not economical.Now various crowd source models such as twitter have their place in the information ecosystem .
They may beat journalism to the punch in many instances , or correct mistakes journalists make .
But we need journalists to correct the mistakes the crowd makes even more .
You ca n't use a model like Wikipedia as proof that quality journalism is possible with volunteers .
Journalism is much more difficult than holding forth on a topic you might know a little ( or a lot ) about .
Suggesting that something like Wikipedia can replace journalism is like suggesting it can replace science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not strictly true to talk about the kinds of economic models Anderson is talking about (if I understand this correctly) as "free".
They just involve transactions on the consumer end that are too small to bother collecting money for -- from the consumer.
That's not anything particularly revolutionary.
Television ran for years that way with advertising revenues.But if you look at television news, you see the Achilles heel of these models when it comes to journalism.
The three national networks for many years had news shows which were produced to serious journalistic standards.
But local news was a practically a by-word for cheap sensationalism.
"If it bleeds it leads".
It's not that it is impossible to have high quality local news, newspapers did it for years.
It just wasn't economical to put the effort in for local markets unless the consumer ponied up dough.The secret of "free" information is that those tiny increments of consumer value -- usually eyeball time on an advertisement, but it could possibly be other thigns -- can be aggregated on an enormous scale into packages that are valuable enough to pay for things like journalism.
Under Internet models, local news gathered to journalistic standards is not economical.Now various crowd source models such as twitter have their place in the information ecosystem.
They may beat journalism to the punch in many instances, or correct mistakes journalists make.
But we need journalists to correct the mistakes the crowd makes even more.
You can't use a model like Wikipedia as proof that quality journalism is possible with volunteers.
Journalism is much more difficult than holding forth on a topic you might know a little (or a lot) about.
Suggesting that something like Wikipedia can replace journalism is like suggesting it can replace science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537073</id>
	<title>Ug!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246369620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The summary reads like gay flame fest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary reads like gay flame fest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary reads like gay flame fest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28543773</id>
	<title>Re:Hack vs. the Void</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246468260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could say what you said about <i>anything</i> that's wrong in a non-obvious but interesting way. Yeah failures push science forward, but so does pointing out the failures. Gladwell sounds good but doesn't actually have good ideas. You can find many thorough takedowns of his work in print and online. He is a promoter of "aw shucks" journalism, playing dumb to present ideas from a pseudo-layman perspective to emotionally reward the reader when they think they've figured out a non-obvious but simple truth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could say what you said about anything that 's wrong in a non-obvious but interesting way .
Yeah failures push science forward , but so does pointing out the failures .
Gladwell sounds good but does n't actually have good ideas .
You can find many thorough takedowns of his work in print and online .
He is a promoter of " aw shucks " journalism , playing dumb to present ideas from a pseudo-layman perspective to emotionally reward the reader when they think they 've figured out a non-obvious but simple truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could say what you said about anything that's wrong in a non-obvious but interesting way.
Yeah failures push science forward, but so does pointing out the failures.
Gladwell sounds good but doesn't actually have good ideas.
You can find many thorough takedowns of his work in print and online.
He is a promoter of "aw shucks" journalism, playing dumb to present ideas from a pseudo-layman perspective to emotionally reward the reader when they think they've figured out a non-obvious but simple truth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28539533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535997</id>
	<title>The New York Times</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246362780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For hipster trash neourbanites like you.</p><p>Get the weekender so we can tell you what to think, and what to parrot off to your friends in order to sound smart and cultured.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For hipster trash neourbanites like you.Get the weekender so we can tell you what to think , and what to parrot off to your friends in order to sound smart and cultured .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For hipster trash neourbanites like you.Get the weekender so we can tell you what to think, and what to parrot off to your friends in order to sound smart and cultured.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536199</id>
	<title>Please, not Malcom Gladwell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246363800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>FACT:</b> Chuck Norris is the only one who can read Malcom Gladwell without losing brain cells.</p><p>But even he loses <i>one</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FACT : Chuck Norris is the only one who can read Malcom Gladwell without losing brain cells.But even he loses one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FACT: Chuck Norris is the only one who can read Malcom Gladwell without losing brain cells.But even he loses one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537131</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia, wtf?</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1246370100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Did it appear to anyone else that we may have temporarily slahdotted wiki?<br><br>Not likely.  Wikipedia handles more traffic in an hour than slashdot gets in a day.<br><br>Wikipedia does occasionally get more traffic than it can handle promptly and return results slowly, but a link from slashdot has nothing to do with this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Did it appear to anyone else that we may have temporarily slahdotted wiki ? Not likely .
Wikipedia handles more traffic in an hour than slashdot gets in a day.Wikipedia does occasionally get more traffic than it can handle promptly and return results slowly , but a link from slashdot has nothing to do with this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Did it appear to anyone else that we may have temporarily slahdotted wiki?Not likely.
Wikipedia handles more traffic in an hour than slashdot gets in a day.Wikipedia does occasionally get more traffic than it can handle promptly and return results slowly, but a link from slashdot has nothing to do with this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536831</id>
	<title>frost p1st</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246367400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">is dying.  Fact: And she ran Troubled OS. NOow</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>is dying .
Fact : And she ran Troubled OS .
NOow [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is dying.
Fact: And she ran Troubled OS.
NOow [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537715</id>
	<title>In a year</title>
	<author>hansoloaf</author>
	<datestamp>1246374300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>no one is gonna care.</htmltext>
<tokenext>no one is gon na care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no one is gonna care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538715</id>
	<title>Old news.</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1246385040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is pretty much where this debate was during the IT bubble 10 years ago. Everyone was wondering how all the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.coms were planning on making money when everything they sold was "free."</p><p>Of course, those services that truly were free didn't last, and those that actually weren't free and had many strings attached didn't last either, except the latter pissed a lot of people off in the process. Some managed to IPO and raise money successfully, but raising money and making money are different things, and in the end everyone lost except those who knew when to get out.</p><p>They should require by law that every company disclose how they make their money and how they cover their costs. This used to be obvious. Only recently has this become convoluted with all the "innovation" in the financial sector and with contracts. They should also require "simple commerce" without any non-upfront, opt-out type of fees.</p><p>Manipulation is not innovation. It is manipulation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is pretty much where this debate was during the IT bubble 10 years ago .
Everyone was wondering how all the .coms were planning on making money when everything they sold was " free .
" Of course , those services that truly were free did n't last , and those that actually were n't free and had many strings attached did n't last either , except the latter pissed a lot of people off in the process .
Some managed to IPO and raise money successfully , but raising money and making money are different things , and in the end everyone lost except those who knew when to get out.They should require by law that every company disclose how they make their money and how they cover their costs .
This used to be obvious .
Only recently has this become convoluted with all the " innovation " in the financial sector and with contracts .
They should also require " simple commerce " without any non-upfront , opt-out type of fees.Manipulation is not innovation .
It is manipulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is pretty much where this debate was during the IT bubble 10 years ago.
Everyone was wondering how all the .coms were planning on making money when everything they sold was "free.
"Of course, those services that truly were free didn't last, and those that actually weren't free and had many strings attached didn't last either, except the latter pissed a lot of people off in the process.
Some managed to IPO and raise money successfully, but raising money and making money are different things, and in the end everyone lost except those who knew when to get out.They should require by law that every company disclose how they make their money and how they cover their costs.
This used to be obvious.
Only recently has this become convoluted with all the "innovation" in the financial sector and with contracts.
They should also require "simple commerce" without any non-upfront, opt-out type of fees.Manipulation is not innovation.
It is manipulation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28540223</id>
	<title>Re:YouTube does not have to make money</title>
	<author>cliffski</author>
	<datestamp>1246447620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chrome is a deliberate attempt to make a popular browser with no ad-block support. Because ad-block is bad news for google.<br>Thats the business case I'd make for it. Not that it was necessary for there to be another browser to encourage people to surf. We already have lots of browsers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome is a deliberate attempt to make a popular browser with no ad-block support .
Because ad-block is bad news for google.Thats the business case I 'd make for it .
Not that it was necessary for there to be another browser to encourage people to surf .
We already have lots of browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome is a deliberate attempt to make a popular browser with no ad-block support.
Because ad-block is bad news for google.Thats the business case I'd make for it.
Not that it was necessary for there to be another browser to encourage people to surf.
We already have lots of browsers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537383</id>
	<title>YouTube does not have to make money</title>
	<author>brunes69</author>
	<datestamp>1246371960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is common knowledge that has been confirmed by various higher-ups at Google over the past few years, that as far as Google is concerned, "What is good for The Web, is good for Google". Google spends hundreds of millions per year on various free giveaways that it will not now or probably ever recoup costs on - things like Chrome, supporting Firefox, YouTube, etc.</p><p>Why does it do this? Because the more people utilize the web, the more it becomes the center of their daily lives, they more they will rely on Google as the librarian of all of that knowledge - which means they will get more money from their ads.</p><p>Google does not have to make money any project it launches, as long as whatever it is doing is going to cause you to use the web more in one way or another, because they know if you are using the web, then you are probably going to be searching it with Google.com.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is common knowledge that has been confirmed by various higher-ups at Google over the past few years , that as far as Google is concerned , " What is good for The Web , is good for Google " .
Google spends hundreds of millions per year on various free giveaways that it will not now or probably ever recoup costs on - things like Chrome , supporting Firefox , YouTube , etc.Why does it do this ?
Because the more people utilize the web , the more it becomes the center of their daily lives , they more they will rely on Google as the librarian of all of that knowledge - which means they will get more money from their ads.Google does not have to make money any project it launches , as long as whatever it is doing is going to cause you to use the web more in one way or another , because they know if you are using the web , then you are probably going to be searching it with Google.com .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is common knowledge that has been confirmed by various higher-ups at Google over the past few years, that as far as Google is concerned, "What is good for The Web, is good for Google".
Google spends hundreds of millions per year on various free giveaways that it will not now or probably ever recoup costs on - things like Chrome, supporting Firefox, YouTube, etc.Why does it do this?
Because the more people utilize the web, the more it becomes the center of their daily lives, they more they will rely on Google as the librarian of all of that knowledge - which means they will get more money from their ads.Google does not have to make money any project it launches, as long as whatever it is doing is going to cause you to use the web more in one way or another, because they know if you are using the web, then you are probably going to be searching it with Google.com.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536165</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?!</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1246363680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well it certainly was abstract!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well it certainly was abstract !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well it certainly was abstract!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28543465</id>
	<title>DOOMED</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246467360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whats the matter, Free not working out for you and now you get the hairs on your back in a raise because someone dares to challenge your Free Idiotocracy?</p><p>If you need a book to explain that everything you are, have, done and will do in your miserable lives was the product of NOT FREE, then you are a fucking TOOL of the highest order. That should lead you to conclude that FREE means SLAVE dumbasses. But you have been manipulated since you came out of your moms rotten hole.</p><p>If you cling to your Free Idiotocracy you will effectively code yourself out of work and a future dummy. Wake Up fools.</p><p>FREE = a Randian outcome in which you are the slave</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Now run to your precious internet to find "links to truth" just as you did when you pulled the lever for Obama who is now ushering in your collective demise in ways you cant even begin to understand since there are no links to lay it all out in a way you can understand, your a fucking mind slave.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I have been railing here for years, I am a troll, not because I live under a bridge but because moderation here deems my viewpoint so. I can see now, I was right as usual as more and more of you are pumping gas and yet are still clinging to your marxist delusions of FREE.</p><p>Enjoy the slippery slope for you are doomed</p><p>PS Fuck You and your Mods and Score you fuckwads</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whats the matter , Free not working out for you and now you get the hairs on your back in a raise because someone dares to challenge your Free Idiotocracy ? If you need a book to explain that everything you are , have , done and will do in your miserable lives was the product of NOT FREE , then you are a fucking TOOL of the highest order .
That should lead you to conclude that FREE means SLAVE dumbasses .
But you have been manipulated since you came out of your moms rotten hole.If you cling to your Free Idiotocracy you will effectively code yourself out of work and a future dummy .
Wake Up fools.FREE = a Randian outcome in which you are the slave     Now run to your precious internet to find " links to truth " just as you did when you pulled the lever for Obama who is now ushering in your collective demise in ways you cant even begin to understand since there are no links to lay it all out in a way you can understand , your a fucking mind slave .
    I have been railing here for years , I am a troll , not because I live under a bridge but because moderation here deems my viewpoint so .
I can see now , I was right as usual as more and more of you are pumping gas and yet are still clinging to your marxist delusions of FREE.Enjoy the slippery slope for you are doomedPS Fuck You and your Mods and Score you fuckwads</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whats the matter, Free not working out for you and now you get the hairs on your back in a raise because someone dares to challenge your Free Idiotocracy?If you need a book to explain that everything you are, have, done and will do in your miserable lives was the product of NOT FREE, then you are a fucking TOOL of the highest order.
That should lead you to conclude that FREE means SLAVE dumbasses.
But you have been manipulated since you came out of your moms rotten hole.If you cling to your Free Idiotocracy you will effectively code yourself out of work and a future dummy.
Wake Up fools.FREE = a Randian outcome in which you are the slave
    Now run to your precious internet to find "links to truth" just as you did when you pulled the lever for Obama who is now ushering in your collective demise in ways you cant even begin to understand since there are no links to lay it all out in a way you can understand, your a fucking mind slave.
    I have been railing here for years, I am a troll, not because I live under a bridge but because moderation here deems my viewpoint so.
I can see now, I was right as usual as more and more of you are pumping gas and yet are still clinging to your marxist delusions of FREE.Enjoy the slippery slope for you are doomedPS Fuck You and your Mods and Score you fuckwads</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538573</id>
	<title>I think Gladwell makes some excellent points</title>
	<author>smellsofbikes</author>
	<datestamp>1246383000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most notably that Anderson bases most of his argument on the idea that there is an enormous difference between 'extremely cheap' and 'free' ("the magic of the word 'free' creates instant demand among consumers" that is vastly higher than the increase in demand seen between charging $0.10 and $0.01) but, as Gladwell points out, at no point does Anderson say that information/data storage is actually free, just that it is heading that direction asymptotically.  As such, it is still, always, $0.01 or thereabouts, and not actually 'free'.  So by Anderson's own argument, all the advantages that you get from free information and a post-scarcity society, don't ever happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most notably that Anderson bases most of his argument on the idea that there is an enormous difference between 'extremely cheap ' and 'free ' ( " the magic of the word 'free ' creates instant demand among consumers " that is vastly higher than the increase in demand seen between charging $ 0.10 and $ 0.01 ) but , as Gladwell points out , at no point does Anderson say that information/data storage is actually free , just that it is heading that direction asymptotically .
As such , it is still , always , $ 0.01 or thereabouts , and not actually 'free' .
So by Anderson 's own argument , all the advantages that you get from free information and a post-scarcity society , do n't ever happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most notably that Anderson bases most of his argument on the idea that there is an enormous difference between 'extremely cheap' and 'free' ("the magic of the word 'free' creates instant demand among consumers" that is vastly higher than the increase in demand seen between charging $0.10 and $0.01) but, as Gladwell points out, at no point does Anderson say that information/data storage is actually free, just that it is heading that direction asymptotically.
As such, it is still, always, $0.01 or thereabouts, and not actually 'free'.
So by Anderson's own argument, all the advantages that you get from free information and a post-scarcity society, don't ever happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536437</id>
	<title>Business models need to change with the times.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246365060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're both a bit wrong.  Info on the net isn't free.  I pay for an internet connection.  People pay for computers to connect to the internet, or pay the travel cost (which still takes time, although public transport, fuel costs or even food to power their legs/arms also have costs) to a library or other free location.</p><p>The reality is that the cost to access information and collect information has changed dramatically.  This is true for the newspaper producers, their access to info from reporters etc. is less costly now.  It's also true for the consumer.  The information people used to be happy to buy from newspapers is easier to get in other ways now.  That's just the way things are.</p><p>I can understand newspaper people who complain about their lost revenue and whine about people who think the information isn't worth as much as it used to be.   The business model for manure haulers and buggy whip makers changed too.  That's life.  Propping up failed business models with taxpayer funds or new laws to keep prices high for something that just isn't worth the old price, seems like the wrong thing to do.  It just encourages large corporations to not worry about being economically viable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're both a bit wrong .
Info on the net is n't free .
I pay for an internet connection .
People pay for computers to connect to the internet , or pay the travel cost ( which still takes time , although public transport , fuel costs or even food to power their legs/arms also have costs ) to a library or other free location.The reality is that the cost to access information and collect information has changed dramatically .
This is true for the newspaper producers , their access to info from reporters etc .
is less costly now .
It 's also true for the consumer .
The information people used to be happy to buy from newspapers is easier to get in other ways now .
That 's just the way things are.I can understand newspaper people who complain about their lost revenue and whine about people who think the information is n't worth as much as it used to be .
The business model for manure haulers and buggy whip makers changed too .
That 's life .
Propping up failed business models with taxpayer funds or new laws to keep prices high for something that just is n't worth the old price , seems like the wrong thing to do .
It just encourages large corporations to not worry about being economically viable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're both a bit wrong.
Info on the net isn't free.
I pay for an internet connection.
People pay for computers to connect to the internet, or pay the travel cost (which still takes time, although public transport, fuel costs or even food to power their legs/arms also have costs) to a library or other free location.The reality is that the cost to access information and collect information has changed dramatically.
This is true for the newspaper producers, their access to info from reporters etc.
is less costly now.
It's also true for the consumer.
The information people used to be happy to buy from newspapers is easier to get in other ways now.
That's just the way things are.I can understand newspaper people who complain about their lost revenue and whine about people who think the information isn't worth as much as it used to be.
The business model for manure haulers and buggy whip makers changed too.
That's life.
Propping up failed business models with taxpayer funds or new laws to keep prices high for something that just isn't worth the old price, seems like the wrong thing to do.
It just encourages large corporations to not worry about being economically viable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538669</id>
	<title>Re:The biggest point, in my opinion</title>
	<author>khope</author>
	<datestamp>1246384260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The biggest point, in my opinion, that Gladwell makes, is that you still need to find a way to make money."</p><p>You only need a way to be supported--an important difference.</p><p>[snip]</p><p>"I think Anderson is kind of stumbling upon a point an MBA told me once, that given enough time, all new technology becomes a commodity. [snip]...(the MBA then went on to tell me a number of different techniques to 'lock in' customers to your product: trapping users with file format was one, there were many other more devious methods, and Microsoft uses many of them. I don't underestimate quality MBAs anymore)."</p><p>These methods amount to creating artificial scarcity to monetize.</p><p>"What Anderson is saying is that more and more, marketers will use freeness to suck users in. This is actually common knowledge among marketers, they've been playing with 'free' for years, and they are really excited about it, and talk about it amongst themselves, and to anyone else who will listen. Basically Anderson is right."</p><p>"What Gladwell is saying is that you still need a way to cover your costs. Basically he is right as well."</p><p>I agree, but note that each uses the economics of scarcity to provide the solution, as though only some things can be free.</p><p>"They are both right, and what's more, if you asked an MBA about this, they might wonder why you are arguing about such basic ideas. And if you ask nicely, they'll tell you tons more about things you never even thought of."</p><p>Yes, but they will not tell you about an economic theory of abundance because there does not seem to be one. Our economic theories depend on scarcity.</p><p>I believe such theories are in line to crash relatively soon.</p><p>In the early 1900s the US was primarily an agrarian nation, living on farms and producing food. Today a tiny fraction of our population produces all the food we need. We became an industrial nation, making things. Today less than 10\% of our workforce is in manufacturing. And both groups are decreasing in size.</p><p>We are approaching a situation in which we do not need a large fraction of our available workforce to produce our basic needs. This has been and continues to be a relentless trend. Recent acceleration in unemployment has brought us to 30 million underused workers at the moment, about 18\% of the workforce.</p><p>We have to grapple with the idea that "earning a living" may be an irrational goal--that life support needs a different basis than work &gt; earn &gt; eat. That is, as the stuff of life becomes abundant, it also must become free.</p><p>I do not know how it will work out. Until we have an economic theory of abundance, we lack tools to think with. I think Anderson, Gladwell, the MBAs, and the economists are just playing at the edges while the middle swiftly and silently erodes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The biggest point , in my opinion , that Gladwell makes , is that you still need to find a way to make money .
" You only need a way to be supported--an important difference .
[ snip ] " I think Anderson is kind of stumbling upon a point an MBA told me once , that given enough time , all new technology becomes a commodity .
[ snip ] ... ( the MBA then went on to tell me a number of different techniques to 'lock in ' customers to your product : trapping users with file format was one , there were many other more devious methods , and Microsoft uses many of them .
I do n't underestimate quality MBAs anymore ) .
" These methods amount to creating artificial scarcity to monetize .
" What Anderson is saying is that more and more , marketers will use freeness to suck users in .
This is actually common knowledge among marketers , they 've been playing with 'free ' for years , and they are really excited about it , and talk about it amongst themselves , and to anyone else who will listen .
Basically Anderson is right .
" " What Gladwell is saying is that you still need a way to cover your costs .
Basically he is right as well .
" I agree , but note that each uses the economics of scarcity to provide the solution , as though only some things can be free .
" They are both right , and what 's more , if you asked an MBA about this , they might wonder why you are arguing about such basic ideas .
And if you ask nicely , they 'll tell you tons more about things you never even thought of .
" Yes , but they will not tell you about an economic theory of abundance because there does not seem to be one .
Our economic theories depend on scarcity.I believe such theories are in line to crash relatively soon.In the early 1900s the US was primarily an agrarian nation , living on farms and producing food .
Today a tiny fraction of our population produces all the food we need .
We became an industrial nation , making things .
Today less than 10 \ % of our workforce is in manufacturing .
And both groups are decreasing in size.We are approaching a situation in which we do not need a large fraction of our available workforce to produce our basic needs .
This has been and continues to be a relentless trend .
Recent acceleration in unemployment has brought us to 30 million underused workers at the moment , about 18 \ % of the workforce.We have to grapple with the idea that " earning a living " may be an irrational goal--that life support needs a different basis than work &gt; earn &gt; eat .
That is , as the stuff of life becomes abundant , it also must become free.I do not know how it will work out .
Until we have an economic theory of abundance , we lack tools to think with .
I think Anderson , Gladwell , the MBAs , and the economists are just playing at the edges while the middle swiftly and silently erodes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The biggest point, in my opinion, that Gladwell makes, is that you still need to find a way to make money.
"You only need a way to be supported--an important difference.
[snip]"I think Anderson is kind of stumbling upon a point an MBA told me once, that given enough time, all new technology becomes a commodity.
[snip]...(the MBA then went on to tell me a number of different techniques to 'lock in' customers to your product: trapping users with file format was one, there were many other more devious methods, and Microsoft uses many of them.
I don't underestimate quality MBAs anymore).
"These methods amount to creating artificial scarcity to monetize.
"What Anderson is saying is that more and more, marketers will use freeness to suck users in.
This is actually common knowledge among marketers, they've been playing with 'free' for years, and they are really excited about it, and talk about it amongst themselves, and to anyone else who will listen.
Basically Anderson is right.
""What Gladwell is saying is that you still need a way to cover your costs.
Basically he is right as well.
"I agree, but note that each uses the economics of scarcity to provide the solution, as though only some things can be free.
"They are both right, and what's more, if you asked an MBA about this, they might wonder why you are arguing about such basic ideas.
And if you ask nicely, they'll tell you tons more about things you never even thought of.
"Yes, but they will not tell you about an economic theory of abundance because there does not seem to be one.
Our economic theories depend on scarcity.I believe such theories are in line to crash relatively soon.In the early 1900s the US was primarily an agrarian nation, living on farms and producing food.
Today a tiny fraction of our population produces all the food we need.
We became an industrial nation, making things.
Today less than 10\% of our workforce is in manufacturing.
And both groups are decreasing in size.We are approaching a situation in which we do not need a large fraction of our available workforce to produce our basic needs.
This has been and continues to be a relentless trend.
Recent acceleration in unemployment has brought us to 30 million underused workers at the moment, about 18\% of the workforce.We have to grapple with the idea that "earning a living" may be an irrational goal--that life support needs a different basis than work &gt; earn &gt; eat.
That is, as the stuff of life becomes abundant, it also must become free.I do not know how it will work out.
Until we have an economic theory of abundance, we lack tools to think with.
I think Anderson, Gladwell, the MBAs, and the economists are just playing at the edges while the middle swiftly and silently erodes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28540385</id>
	<title>Re:Extended Summary</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1246449780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The spat began when Gladwell, in his review of the book, became a bit harsh in his critques of Anderson, calling his arguments "pithy"(sic!) and "uncompromising"</p></div><p>Pithy and uncompromising eh? That's a pretty harsh thing to say.</p><p> <b>pithy</b>, <i>adj.</i> <br>
 	brief, forceful, and meaningful in expression; full of vigor, substance, or meaning; terse; forcible: a pithy observation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The spat began when Gladwell , in his review of the book , became a bit harsh in his critques of Anderson , calling his arguments " pithy " ( sic !
) and " uncompromising " Pithy and uncompromising eh ?
That 's a pretty harsh thing to say .
pithy , adj .
brief , forceful , and meaningful in expression ; full of vigor , substance , or meaning ; terse ; forcible : a pithy observation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The spat began when Gladwell, in his review of the book, became a bit harsh in his critques of Anderson, calling his arguments "pithy"(sic!
) and "uncompromising"Pithy and uncompromising eh?
That's a pretty harsh thing to say.
pithy, adj.
brief, forceful, and meaningful in expression; full of vigor, substance, or meaning; terse; forcible: a pithy observation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537309</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?!</title>
	<author>caladine</author>
	<datestamp>1246371480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Posted by <b>kdawson</b> on Tuesday June 30, @04:46PM</p></div> </blockquote><p>
[sarcasm] Oh, wow. I'm surprised by this one! [/sarcasm]</p><p>kdawson's SNR is pretty low.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Posted by kdawson on Tuesday June 30 , @ 04 : 46PM [ sarcasm ] Oh , wow .
I 'm surprised by this one !
[ /sarcasm ] kdawson 's SNR is pretty low .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posted by kdawson on Tuesday June 30, @04:46PM 
[sarcasm] Oh, wow.
I'm surprised by this one!
[/sarcasm]kdawson's SNR is pretty low.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536413</id>
	<title>Re:My Time Isn't Free</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246364940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows 7 <b>RC</b> -- because your time is free to Microsoft, and your data is less important than your Ballmer fanboi suckass score.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 RC -- because your time is free to Microsoft , and your data is less important than your Ballmer fanboi suckass score .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 RC -- because your time is free to Microsoft, and your data is less important than your Ballmer fanboi suckass score.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536003</id>
	<title>My Time Isn't Free</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246362840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm done tinkering with Linux.</p><p>Windows 7 - Because your time isn't free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm done tinkering with Linux.Windows 7 - Because your time is n't free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm done tinkering with Linux.Windows 7 - Because your time isn't free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535919</id>
	<title>It's free!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246362480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm free to take the first post! Yaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm free to take the first post !
Yaaaaaaaaa ! ! ! ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm free to take the first post!
Yaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536571</id>
	<title>Extended Summary</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1246365780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To try and make a long story short, but not too short:</p><p>Malcolm Gladwell and Chris Anderson are, according to the Guardian newspaper, "Two of the world's leading thinkers". A title seemingly obtained from a long career of writing endless books about things no one really cares about, but everyone likes to have an opinion on.</p><p>Andeson is the author of a book called, "<i>Free: The Future of a Radical Price</i>", in which he argued that in an age where terabyte drives can be had for less than $100 , and megabytes of data can be whizzed around the tubes in seconds, a story or articles or other pieces of data only a few kilobytes in size can only be worth, well, nothing.</p><p>The spat began when , Gladwell, in his review of the book, became a bit, harsh, in his critques of Anderson, calling his arguments "pithy"(sic!) and "uncompromising", and generally regarded Anderson's arguments as lacking in substance(my word!).</p><p>Unfortunately, this rather vicious assault came at a time when Anderson was recently caught plagiarising material, and worse from Wikipedia, so he must have felt a need to defend his intellectual honor from Gladwell's slights. He therefore promptly responded with am open letter titled "<i>Dear Malcom: Why so threatened?</i>"</p><p>At this point everyone in the playground let out a collective "OOOUUUUHHHHHHHHH!!!" and someone was heard to yell "Fight!". Needless to say, this sort of hubbub is rarely seen in such great intellectual circles, and the social clubs are just <i>brimming</i> with gossip about the scandal.</p><p>The Guardian, ever the vigilant reporter of great matters of state, has dutifully brought the matter to the attention of the greater public. In addition, their great commentator Murad Ahmed, has already declared that Gladwell "wins this one on points", which is certain to stir things up a bit.</p><p>It's all so exciting! Wouldn't you agree?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To try and make a long story short , but not too short : Malcolm Gladwell and Chris Anderson are , according to the Guardian newspaper , " Two of the world 's leading thinkers " .
A title seemingly obtained from a long career of writing endless books about things no one really cares about , but everyone likes to have an opinion on.Andeson is the author of a book called , " Free : The Future of a Radical Price " , in which he argued that in an age where terabyte drives can be had for less than $ 100 , and megabytes of data can be whizzed around the tubes in seconds , a story or articles or other pieces of data only a few kilobytes in size can only be worth , well , nothing.The spat began when , Gladwell , in his review of the book , became a bit , harsh , in his critques of Anderson , calling his arguments " pithy " ( sic !
) and " uncompromising " , and generally regarded Anderson 's arguments as lacking in substance ( my word !
) .Unfortunately , this rather vicious assault came at a time when Anderson was recently caught plagiarising material , and worse from Wikipedia , so he must have felt a need to defend his intellectual honor from Gladwell 's slights .
He therefore promptly responded with am open letter titled " Dear Malcom : Why so threatened ?
" At this point everyone in the playground let out a collective " OOOUUUUHHHHHHHHH ! ! !
" and someone was heard to yell " Fight ! " .
Needless to say , this sort of hubbub is rarely seen in such great intellectual circles , and the social clubs are just brimming with gossip about the scandal.The Guardian , ever the vigilant reporter of great matters of state , has dutifully brought the matter to the attention of the greater public .
In addition , their great commentator Murad Ahmed , has already declared that Gladwell " wins this one on points " , which is certain to stir things up a bit.It 's all so exciting !
Would n't you agree ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To try and make a long story short, but not too short:Malcolm Gladwell and Chris Anderson are, according to the Guardian newspaper, "Two of the world's leading thinkers".
A title seemingly obtained from a long career of writing endless books about things no one really cares about, but everyone likes to have an opinion on.Andeson is the author of a book called, "Free: The Future of a Radical Price", in which he argued that in an age where terabyte drives can be had for less than $100 , and megabytes of data can be whizzed around the tubes in seconds, a story or articles or other pieces of data only a few kilobytes in size can only be worth, well, nothing.The spat began when , Gladwell, in his review of the book, became a bit, harsh, in his critques of Anderson, calling his arguments "pithy"(sic!
) and "uncompromising", and generally regarded Anderson's arguments as lacking in substance(my word!
).Unfortunately, this rather vicious assault came at a time when Anderson was recently caught plagiarising material, and worse from Wikipedia, so he must have felt a need to defend his intellectual honor from Gladwell's slights.
He therefore promptly responded with am open letter titled "Dear Malcom: Why so threatened?
"At this point everyone in the playground let out a collective "OOOUUUUHHHHHHHHH!!!
" and someone was heard to yell "Fight!".
Needless to say, this sort of hubbub is rarely seen in such great intellectual circles, and the social clubs are just brimming with gossip about the scandal.The Guardian, ever the vigilant reporter of great matters of state, has dutifully brought the matter to the attention of the greater public.
In addition, their great commentator Murad Ahmed, has already declared that Gladwell "wins this one on points", which is certain to stir things up a bit.It's all so exciting!
Wouldn't you agree?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536129</id>
	<title>To be fair</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1246363440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does Gladwell also have a problem with the Wikipedia articles that Anderson plagiarized for the book?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does Gladwell also have a problem with the Wikipedia articles that Anderson plagiarized for the book ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does Gladwell also have a problem with the Wikipedia articles that Anderson plagiarized for the book?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28539397</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?!</title>
	<author>Swampash</author>
	<datestamp>1246479540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just kdawson using Slashdot as his personal blog again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just kdawson using Slashdot as his personal blog again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just kdawson using Slashdot as his personal blog again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28540277</id>
	<title>Re:Extended Summary</title>
	<author>dzfoo</author>
	<datestamp>1246448340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is incorrect of his usage of "pithy"?</p><p>&gt;&gt; "His advice is pithy[...]"<br><tt><br>pithy |&lt;SLASHDOT CANNOT PRINT NON-LATIN CHARS, WTF?&gt;|<br>adjective ( pithier , pithiest )<br>1 (of language or style) concise and forcefully expressive. See note at terse*.</tt></p><p><tt>* From "terse": "A pithy statement is not only succinct but full of substance and meaning (: a pithy argument that no one could counter)."<br></tt><br>Source: New Oxford American Dictionary</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -dZ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is incorrect of his usage of " pithy " ? &gt; &gt; " His advice is pithy [ ... ] " pithy | | adjective ( pithier , pithiest ) 1 ( of language or style ) concise and forcefully expressive .
See note at terse * .
* From " terse " : " A pithy statement is not only succinct but full of substance and meaning ( : a pithy argument that no one could counter ) .
" Source : New Oxford American Dictionary           -dZ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is incorrect of his usage of "pithy"?&gt;&gt; "His advice is pithy[...]"pithy ||adjective ( pithier , pithiest )1 (of language or style) concise and forcefully expressive.
See note at terse*.
* From "terse": "A pithy statement is not only succinct but full of substance and meaning (: a pithy argument that no one could counter).
"Source: New Oxford American Dictionary
          -dZ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28544453</id>
	<title>Re:Extended Summary</title>
	<author>Bugs42</author>
	<datestamp>1246470180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The spat began when , Gladwell, in his review of the book, became a bit, harsh, in his critques of Anderson,</p></div><p>Mr., Shatner, is, that, you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The spat began when , Gladwell , in his review of the book , became a bit , harsh , in his critques of Anderson,Mr. , Shatner , is , that , you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The spat began when , Gladwell, in his review of the book, became a bit, harsh, in his critques of Anderson,Mr., Shatner, is, that, you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536641</id>
	<title>Re:The biggest point, in my opinion</title>
	<author>Narpak</author>
	<datestamp>1246366200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, they have infrastructure costs of somewhere around $300 million a year, which they haven't been able to cover with advertising.</p></div><p>According to <a href="http://www.multichannel.com/article/191223-YouTube\_May\_Lose\_470\_Million\_In\_2009\_Analysts.php" title="multichannel.com">this article - "YouTube May Lose $470 Million In 2009"</a> [multichannel.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>According to the firm's analysis of YouTube traffic and ad strategies, the site is on track to generate about $240 million in revenue in 2009, up about 20\% year over year.<br> <br>

But the cost of bandwidth, content licensing, ad-revenue shares, hardware storage, sales and marketing and other expenses will total about $711 million, putting YouTube squarely in the red, the Credit Suisse report estimated. Bandwidth accounts for about 51\% of expenses -- with a run rate of $1 million per day -- with content licensing accounting for 36\%.
<br> <br>
To arrive at the estimated $360 million bandwidth tab for YouTube, the analysts assumed the site will receive 375 million unique visitors in 2009 and that a maximum of 20\% of those users are on the site at any given time. Credit Suisse's analysis then assumed each user downloads a video at 400 kilobits per second, to yield a peak bit run-rate for YouTube of 30 million megabits per second.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , they have infrastructure costs of somewhere around $ 300 million a year , which they have n't been able to cover with advertising.According to this article - " YouTube May Lose $ 470 Million In 2009 " [ multichannel.com ] According to the firm 's analysis of YouTube traffic and ad strategies , the site is on track to generate about $ 240 million in revenue in 2009 , up about 20 \ % year over year .
But the cost of bandwidth , content licensing , ad-revenue shares , hardware storage , sales and marketing and other expenses will total about $ 711 million , putting YouTube squarely in the red , the Credit Suisse report estimated .
Bandwidth accounts for about 51 \ % of expenses -- with a run rate of $ 1 million per day -- with content licensing accounting for 36 \ % .
To arrive at the estimated $ 360 million bandwidth tab for YouTube , the analysts assumed the site will receive 375 million unique visitors in 2009 and that a maximum of 20 \ % of those users are on the site at any given time .
Credit Suisse 's analysis then assumed each user downloads a video at 400 kilobits per second , to yield a peak bit run-rate for YouTube of 30 million megabits per second .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, they have infrastructure costs of somewhere around $300 million a year, which they haven't been able to cover with advertising.According to this article - "YouTube May Lose $470 Million In 2009" [multichannel.com] According to the firm's analysis of YouTube traffic and ad strategies, the site is on track to generate about $240 million in revenue in 2009, up about 20\% year over year.
But the cost of bandwidth, content licensing, ad-revenue shares, hardware storage, sales and marketing and other expenses will total about $711 million, putting YouTube squarely in the red, the Credit Suisse report estimated.
Bandwidth accounts for about 51\% of expenses -- with a run rate of $1 million per day -- with content licensing accounting for 36\%.
To arrive at the estimated $360 million bandwidth tab for YouTube, the analysts assumed the site will receive 375 million unique visitors in 2009 and that a maximum of 20\% of those users are on the site at any given time.
Credit Suisse's analysis then assumed each user downloads a video at 400 kilobits per second, to yield a peak bit run-rate for YouTube of 30 million megabits per second.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28542847</id>
	<title>Re:Is the real story ego?</title>
	<author>TrippTDF</author>
	<datestamp>1246465380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Post-peak perhaps, but his arguements against Free are quite valid.  It really does come down to the meme:<br> <br>

Step 1:  Make content "free"<br>
Step 2: ?<br>
Step 3: Profit!<br> <br>

YouTube has never really answered step 2-  they thought it was advertising, but they have failed to demonstrate the Return on Investment for advertisers against free video... because no one is going to YouTube with an interest in being advertised to.<br> <br>

The assumption is that advertising is the way to make money on the internet, which follows a broadcast model.  However, because there is such a wide number of websites compared even to a premium cable package, and because it's harder to do a media buy that targets specific demos effectively (also part of the broadcast model), online advertising is going to be limited to the Search model, where contextual ads based on your search keywords pop up.  <br> <br>

The model that is going to have to be implemented is going to be the National Public Radio / TV model...  a donation-based system with regular funding drives.  People are not going to give up the free content they have become accustomed to, and advertisers are not going to see the same ROI to justify ad spends online.  a donation-based system should still be able to drive major organizations... the NYTimes would probably not pull in as much money through a digital-only donation system as they do with their current system, but their production costs are so drastically reduced that they would be able to continue to print, although there would be a lot of layoffs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Post-peak perhaps , but his arguements against Free are quite valid .
It really does come down to the meme : Step 1 : Make content " free " Step 2 : ?
Step 3 : Profit !
YouTube has never really answered step 2- they thought it was advertising , but they have failed to demonstrate the Return on Investment for advertisers against free video... because no one is going to YouTube with an interest in being advertised to .
The assumption is that advertising is the way to make money on the internet , which follows a broadcast model .
However , because there is such a wide number of websites compared even to a premium cable package , and because it 's harder to do a media buy that targets specific demos effectively ( also part of the broadcast model ) , online advertising is going to be limited to the Search model , where contextual ads based on your search keywords pop up .
The model that is going to have to be implemented is going to be the National Public Radio / TV model... a donation-based system with regular funding drives .
People are not going to give up the free content they have become accustomed to , and advertisers are not going to see the same ROI to justify ad spends online .
a donation-based system should still be able to drive major organizations... the NYTimes would probably not pull in as much money through a digital-only donation system as they do with their current system , but their production costs are so drastically reduced that they would be able to continue to print , although there would be a lot of layoffs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Post-peak perhaps, but his arguements against Free are quite valid.
It really does come down to the meme: 

Step 1:  Make content "free"
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Profit!
YouTube has never really answered step 2-  they thought it was advertising, but they have failed to demonstrate the Return on Investment for advertisers against free video... because no one is going to YouTube with an interest in being advertised to.
The assumption is that advertising is the way to make money on the internet, which follows a broadcast model.
However, because there is such a wide number of websites compared even to a premium cable package, and because it's harder to do a media buy that targets specific demos effectively (also part of the broadcast model), online advertising is going to be limited to the Search model, where contextual ads based on your search keywords pop up.
The model that is going to have to be implemented is going to be the National Public Radio / TV model...  a donation-based system with regular funding drives.
People are not going to give up the free content they have become accustomed to, and advertisers are not going to see the same ROI to justify ad spends online.
a donation-based system should still be able to drive major organizations... the NYTimes would probably not pull in as much money through a digital-only donation system as they do with their current system, but their production costs are so drastically reduced that they would be able to continue to print, although there would be a lot of layoffs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28539621</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246439400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your "mother/sister"?  Are you your own grandpa?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your " mother/sister " ?
Are you your own grandpa ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your "mother/sister"?
Are you your own grandpa?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536777</id>
	<title>Hack vs. the Void</title>
	<author>sam\_handelman</author>
	<datestamp>1246366980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Malcolm Gladwell is one of those people, not precisely stupid, but so shallow and lacking in insight that he makes Chris Anderson, who is simply a hack, look brilliant by comparison.  Gladwell, lest we forget, specializes in gushing soft journalism pieces on people whom he has designated as "great".  He's what I call a Mensa bottom feeder - he produces work for people who like to think about how smart they are, which is not how actually-smart people spend their time.</p><p>
&nbsp; Gladwell wouldn't know what to do with an actual idea if he had one (I envisage a dog with a <a href="http://www.walrusmagazine.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/slave-ship515.jpg" title="walrusmagazine.com" rel="nofollow">great piece of artwork</a> [walrusmagazine.com], sort of chewing on it.)  Now, Anderson's piece is competent hackery, which is better than most people could do I don't mean this critically, but something about it intersects with the sort of faux-highbrow pablum that Gladwell thinks he understands.  This is very threatning to Gladwell - going back to the dog analogy, it's like he's got some glimpse of a world of ideas and there's a threat to him there that he can't really understand.  Gladwell is getting good money to stick his nose up Bill Gates' behind and there's an army of other dogs willing to do that for free.  So he lashes out in a rage, and since he can dimly percieve Anderson (but not the more interesting and provocative people whose work Anderson has extended), Anderson becomes his target.</p><p>
&nbsp; Again, I have nothing against a competent hack.  But I do have some real criticism for Anderson - seriously, you admire Gladwell?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Malcolm Gladwell is one of those people , not precisely stupid , but so shallow and lacking in insight that he makes Chris Anderson , who is simply a hack , look brilliant by comparison .
Gladwell , lest we forget , specializes in gushing soft journalism pieces on people whom he has designated as " great " .
He 's what I call a Mensa bottom feeder - he produces work for people who like to think about how smart they are , which is not how actually-smart people spend their time .
  Gladwell would n't know what to do with an actual idea if he had one ( I envisage a dog with a great piece of artwork [ walrusmagazine.com ] , sort of chewing on it .
) Now , Anderson 's piece is competent hackery , which is better than most people could do I do n't mean this critically , but something about it intersects with the sort of faux-highbrow pablum that Gladwell thinks he understands .
This is very threatning to Gladwell - going back to the dog analogy , it 's like he 's got some glimpse of a world of ideas and there 's a threat to him there that he ca n't really understand .
Gladwell is getting good money to stick his nose up Bill Gates ' behind and there 's an army of other dogs willing to do that for free .
So he lashes out in a rage , and since he can dimly percieve Anderson ( but not the more interesting and provocative people whose work Anderson has extended ) , Anderson becomes his target .
  Again , I have nothing against a competent hack .
But I do have some real criticism for Anderson - seriously , you admire Gladwell ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Malcolm Gladwell is one of those people, not precisely stupid, but so shallow and lacking in insight that he makes Chris Anderson, who is simply a hack, look brilliant by comparison.
Gladwell, lest we forget, specializes in gushing soft journalism pieces on people whom he has designated as "great".
He's what I call a Mensa bottom feeder - he produces work for people who like to think about how smart they are, which is not how actually-smart people spend their time.
  Gladwell wouldn't know what to do with an actual idea if he had one (I envisage a dog with a great piece of artwork [walrusmagazine.com], sort of chewing on it.
)  Now, Anderson's piece is competent hackery, which is better than most people could do I don't mean this critically, but something about it intersects with the sort of faux-highbrow pablum that Gladwell thinks he understands.
This is very threatning to Gladwell - going back to the dog analogy, it's like he's got some glimpse of a world of ideas and there's a threat to him there that he can't really understand.
Gladwell is getting good money to stick his nose up Bill Gates' behind and there's an army of other dogs willing to do that for free.
So he lashes out in a rage, and since he can dimly percieve Anderson (but not the more interesting and provocative people whose work Anderson has extended), Anderson becomes his target.
  Again, I have nothing against a competent hack.
But I do have some real criticism for Anderson - seriously, you admire Gladwell?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536655</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia, wtf?</title>
	<author>owlnation</author>
	<datestamp>1246366320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Did it appear to anyone else that we may have temporarily slahdotted wiki?</p></div></blockquote><p>

Nah, Jimbo probably just censored it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did it appear to anyone else that we may have temporarily slahdotted wiki ?
Nah , Jimbo probably just censored it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did it appear to anyone else that we may have temporarily slahdotted wiki?
Nah, Jimbo probably just censored it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536421</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia, wtf?</title>
	<author>CecilPL</author>
	<datestamp>1246364940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nope, it's been up and down for at least an hour now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , it 's been up and down for at least an hour now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, it's been up and down for at least an hour now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28540243</id>
	<title>Re:Information doesn't want to be free...</title>
	<author>Isauq</author>
	<datestamp>1246447860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What do you mean?  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">It already has...</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean ?
It already has... [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean?
It already has... [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536235</id>
	<title>Captain Obvious</title>
	<author>EmperorOfCanada</author>
	<datestamp>1246364040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love how this guy discovers the obvious and then gets people to buy his books. What is it? His hair cut fools people into thinking he is smart?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love how this guy discovers the obvious and then gets people to buy his books .
What is it ?
His hair cut fools people into thinking he is smart ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love how this guy discovers the obvious and then gets people to buy his books.
What is it?
His hair cut fools people into thinking he is smart?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536735</id>
	<title>Offtopic flamebaits...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246366740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guarantied to attract at least 8 fanbois since 1972.</p><p>As an added bonus, the above offtopic flamebait has people replying to it about the value of their time.<br>There is more unintentional comedy in this thread than in an average Turkish remake of a famous action movie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guarantied to attract at least 8 fanbois since 1972.As an added bonus , the above offtopic flamebait has people replying to it about the value of their time.There is more unintentional comedy in this thread than in an average Turkish remake of a famous action movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guarantied to attract at least 8 fanbois since 1972.As an added bonus, the above offtopic flamebait has people replying to it about the value of their time.There is more unintentional comedy in this thread than in an average Turkish remake of a famous action movie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536333</id>
	<title>Wikipedia, wtf?</title>
	<author>bsDaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1246364460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did it appear to anyone else that we may have temporarily slahdotted wiki?   This may be the first time that that anyone's ever actually had to click the links to find out whats going on, so it seems plausible.  At least its working again now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did it appear to anyone else that we may have temporarily slahdotted wiki ?
This may be the first time that that anyone 's ever actually had to click the links to find out whats going on , so it seems plausible .
At least its working again now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did it appear to anyone else that we may have temporarily slahdotted wiki?
This may be the first time that that anyone's ever actually had to click the links to find out whats going on, so it seems plausible.
At least its working again now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28540425</id>
	<title>Re:Business models need to change with the times.</title>
	<author>Jedi Alec</author>
	<datestamp>1246450320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They're both a bit wrong. Info on the net isn't free. I pay for an internet connection.</i></p><p>If a shop is giving away free stuff downtown, does the fact that you need some form of transport to get there stop it from being free?</p><p>Your connection is just a form of transport, only the bytes are coming to you instead of you having to drive to the store at the corner to get a newspaper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're both a bit wrong .
Info on the net is n't free .
I pay for an internet connection.If a shop is giving away free stuff downtown , does the fact that you need some form of transport to get there stop it from being free ? Your connection is just a form of transport , only the bytes are coming to you instead of you having to drive to the store at the corner to get a newspaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're both a bit wrong.
Info on the net isn't free.
I pay for an internet connection.If a shop is giving away free stuff downtown, does the fact that you need some form of transport to get there stop it from being free?Your connection is just a form of transport, only the bytes are coming to you instead of you having to drive to the store at the corner to get a newspaper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28546153</id>
	<title>Re:Hack vs. the Void</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1246475160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not quite so against Gladwell generally.  I don't find him particularly interesting, but not so completely awful.  Still, there's a certain irony in us all reading this article for free (not even with ads) in which someone who makes their money from IP is arguing that IP cannot be free.  The whole thing reeks slightly of self-interest contrary to facts in evidence-- of "but how will I get my money, then?"
</p><p>Now I doubt that all IP will become free anytime soon, but it will have to be cheap.  Companies who sell IP will have to recognize that their prices have to shrink at least as much as their distribution costs, and maybe more.  They may see their profits shrink to almost nothing, and they may even have to find new sources of revenue.
</p><p>There's the quote, "Information wants to be free. Information also wants to be expensive.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... That tension will not go away."  I'd never read the second two-thirds of that quote until today, and it seems much more complete for it.  Information wants to be free *and* it wants to be expensive.  In the past, that tension had rested much closer to the "expensive" end.  Now that distribution is so cheap and available, it will have to move closer to "free", but the tension will not go away.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not quite so against Gladwell generally .
I do n't find him particularly interesting , but not so completely awful .
Still , there 's a certain irony in us all reading this article for free ( not even with ads ) in which someone who makes their money from IP is arguing that IP can not be free .
The whole thing reeks slightly of self-interest contrary to facts in evidence-- of " but how will I get my money , then ?
" Now I doubt that all IP will become free anytime soon , but it will have to be cheap .
Companies who sell IP will have to recognize that their prices have to shrink at least as much as their distribution costs , and maybe more .
They may see their profits shrink to almost nothing , and they may even have to find new sources of revenue .
There 's the quote , " Information wants to be free .
Information also wants to be expensive .
... That tension will not go away .
" I 'd never read the second two-thirds of that quote until today , and it seems much more complete for it .
Information wants to be free * and * it wants to be expensive .
In the past , that tension had rested much closer to the " expensive " end .
Now that distribution is so cheap and available , it will have to move closer to " free " , but the tension will not go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not quite so against Gladwell generally.
I don't find him particularly interesting, but not so completely awful.
Still, there's a certain irony in us all reading this article for free (not even with ads) in which someone who makes their money from IP is arguing that IP cannot be free.
The whole thing reeks slightly of self-interest contrary to facts in evidence-- of "but how will I get my money, then?
"
Now I doubt that all IP will become free anytime soon, but it will have to be cheap.
Companies who sell IP will have to recognize that their prices have to shrink at least as much as their distribution costs, and maybe more.
They may see their profits shrink to almost nothing, and they may even have to find new sources of revenue.
There's the quote, "Information wants to be free.
Information also wants to be expensive.
... That tension will not go away.
"  I'd never read the second two-thirds of that quote until today, and it seems much more complete for it.
Information wants to be free *and* it wants to be expensive.
In the past, that tension had rested much closer to the "expensive" end.
Now that distribution is so cheap and available, it will have to move closer to "free", but the tension will not go away.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28551241</id>
	<title>rant much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246449060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... not precisely stupid<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so shallow and lacking in insight<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... who is simply a hack<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... gushing soft journalism... what I call a Mensa bottom feeder<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... produces work for people who like to think about how smart they are<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... wouldn't know what to do with an actual idea if he had one (I envisage a dog with a great piece of artwork, sort of chewing on it.)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... competent hackery<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  faux-highbrow pablum<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... stick his nose up Bill Gates' behind<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... he can dimly percieve<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Again, I have nothing against a competent hack</p></div><p>Whoa there, you use so much <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name-calling" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">name calling</a> [wikipedia.org] that a rational person is forced to disregard your perceptions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... not precisely stupid ... so shallow and lacking in insight ... who is simply a hack ... gushing soft journalism... what I call a Mensa bottom feeder ... produces work for people who like to think about how smart they are ... would n't know what to do with an actual idea if he had one ( I envisage a dog with a great piece of artwork , sort of chewing on it .
) ... competent hackery ... faux-highbrow pablum ... stick his nose up Bill Gates ' behind ... he can dimly percieve ... Again , I have nothing against a competent hackWhoa there , you use so much name calling [ wikipedia.org ] that a rational person is forced to disregard your perceptions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... not precisely stupid ... so shallow and lacking in insight ... who is simply a hack ... gushing soft journalism... what I call a Mensa bottom feeder ... produces work for people who like to think about how smart they are ... wouldn't know what to do with an actual idea if he had one (I envisage a dog with a great piece of artwork, sort of chewing on it.
) ... competent hackery ...  faux-highbrow pablum ... stick his nose up Bill Gates' behind ... he can dimly percieve ... Again, I have nothing against a competent hackWhoa there, you use so much name calling [wikipedia.org] that a rational person is forced to disregard your perceptions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537695</id>
	<title>Commoditization inevitable?</title>
	<author>Mandrel</author>
	<datestamp>1246374180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think Anderson is kind of stumbling upon a point an MBA told me once, that given enough time, all new technology becomes a commodity.  There are a dozen word processors you can choose from, a dozen different types computers, a dozen types of memory to choose from, hundreds of flash game sites (which are free, but 20 years ago people paid real money for games just like those).  So for the most part, things will get sold for a little more than the cost to create them (the MBA then went on to tell me a number of different techniques to 'lock in' customers to your product: trapping users with file format was one, there were many other more devious methods, and Microsoft uses many of them. I don't underestimate quality MBAs anymore).</p>
 </div><p>
Commoditization is usually a surface phenomenon. When you start using things you always find little niggles and poor design choices that you have to learn to live with, because you didn't have the knowledge and time to choose a more suitable product.
</p><p>
There is so much potential for marketers to make their products stand out, and even deserve a premium, by giving their potential customers more help, rather than just agenda-pushing ads and blurb.
</p><p>
This help can be provided by independent consumer advisors. There are ways for product makers to encourage and reward the people who help their customers, without compromising the independence of these advisors.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Anderson is kind of stumbling upon a point an MBA told me once , that given enough time , all new technology becomes a commodity .
There are a dozen word processors you can choose from , a dozen different types computers , a dozen types of memory to choose from , hundreds of flash game sites ( which are free , but 20 years ago people paid real money for games just like those ) .
So for the most part , things will get sold for a little more than the cost to create them ( the MBA then went on to tell me a number of different techniques to 'lock in ' customers to your product : trapping users with file format was one , there were many other more devious methods , and Microsoft uses many of them .
I do n't underestimate quality MBAs anymore ) .
Commoditization is usually a surface phenomenon .
When you start using things you always find little niggles and poor design choices that you have to learn to live with , because you did n't have the knowledge and time to choose a more suitable product .
There is so much potential for marketers to make their products stand out , and even deserve a premium , by giving their potential customers more help , rather than just agenda-pushing ads and blurb .
This help can be provided by independent consumer advisors .
There are ways for product makers to encourage and reward the people who help their customers , without compromising the independence of these advisors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Anderson is kind of stumbling upon a point an MBA told me once, that given enough time, all new technology becomes a commodity.
There are a dozen word processors you can choose from, a dozen different types computers, a dozen types of memory to choose from, hundreds of flash game sites (which are free, but 20 years ago people paid real money for games just like those).
So for the most part, things will get sold for a little more than the cost to create them (the MBA then went on to tell me a number of different techniques to 'lock in' customers to your product: trapping users with file format was one, there were many other more devious methods, and Microsoft uses many of them.
I don't underestimate quality MBAs anymore).
Commoditization is usually a surface phenomenon.
When you start using things you always find little niggles and poor design choices that you have to learn to live with, because you didn't have the knowledge and time to choose a more suitable product.
There is so much potential for marketers to make their products stand out, and even deserve a premium, by giving their potential customers more help, rather than just agenda-pushing ads and blurb.
This help can be provided by independent consumer advisors.
There are ways for product makers to encourage and reward the people who help their customers, without compromising the independence of these advisors.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28641593</id>
	<title>Reminds me of this quote:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247130960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The composer Brahms responded to a review of his latest symphony: "Dear sir: I am seated in the smallest room in my house. I have your review in front of me, and very soon it will be behind me."</p><p>Which was recently posted on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The composer Brahms responded to a review of his latest symphony : " Dear sir : I am seated in the smallest room in my house .
I have your review in front of me , and very soon it will be behind me .
" Which was recently posted on / .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The composer Brahms responded to a review of his latest symphony: "Dear sir: I am seated in the smallest room in my house.
I have your review in front of me, and very soon it will be behind me.
"Which was recently posted on /.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28544699</id>
	<title>Re:I think Anderson gets it exactly backward</title>
	<author>imgod2u</author>
	<datestamp>1246470900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the reason is inflation. Compared to average salaries, today's cars cost a lot less than what they used to save for the premium niche (Ferrari, Porsche, etc.)</p><p>Everything at volume becomes a commodity eventually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the reason is inflation .
Compared to average salaries , today 's cars cost a lot less than what they used to save for the premium niche ( Ferrari , Porsche , etc .
) Everything at volume becomes a commodity eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the reason is inflation.
Compared to average salaries, today's cars cost a lot less than what they used to save for the premium niche (Ferrari, Porsche, etc.
)Everything at volume becomes a commodity eventually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538701</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535955</id>
	<title>it's time to take care of business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246362660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>fags, cripples and retards need to be thrown into ovens so they'll no longer be a burden on society. it's time for us to write to our governments and request an end to these disgusting wastes of life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>fags , cripples and retards need to be thrown into ovens so they 'll no longer be a burden on society .
it 's time for us to write to our governments and request an end to these disgusting wastes of life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fags, cripples and retards need to be thrown into ovens so they'll no longer be a burden on society.
it's time for us to write to our governments and request an end to these disgusting wastes of life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28540425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28540385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28540223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28546153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28539621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28540301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28539531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28540243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28546111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28543773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28539533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28545093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28543375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28551865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28540201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28551241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28547705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28543725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28544699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28544453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28540277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28539807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28542847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28540235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28541603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_2044224_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28539397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_2044224.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536413
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_2044224.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536425
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537075
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28543375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28546111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537383
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28540223
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28545093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28540201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536641
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_2044224.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535997
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_2044224.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538573
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_2044224.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537425
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_2044224.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536235
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_2044224.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536565
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_2044224.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28540301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28540243
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_2044224.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538161
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_2044224.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536421
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_2044224.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28543725
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_2044224.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536777
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28551241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28540235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28546153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28539533
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28543773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538259
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_2044224.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28551865
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_2044224.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28539397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536279
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28539621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536571
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537947
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28539807
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537479
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28542847
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28544453
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28541603
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538457
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538883
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28539531
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28547705
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28540277
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28540385
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_2044224.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28535919
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_2044224.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536199
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_2044224.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28544699
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_2044224.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28536437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28540425
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_2044224.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28537073
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_2044224.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_2044224.28538851
</commentlist>
</conversation>
